Talk:Communism/Archive 10

message: To say that the PCF supported eurocommunism is simply wrong. This is a factual error which should be changed. See eurocommunism.
is not so simply both article wrong, pcf started with a supported late changed their position--Francomemoria 17:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eurocommunism

message: The "What is Communism? (PDF File)" link is broken.
The correct target URL should be
http://www.communistleague.org/pdf/lit/whatis-communism-booklet.pdf
Could someone with access to the article fix the link please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.123.157 (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken External Link

message: I added a cite tag for 'communist movements in SA' and someone named WGee removed it saying that things of common knowledge don't need references. This is not common knowledge to me and I'd like a reference to the communist movements that are happening in South America. Doctors without suspenders 03:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has since removed this claim, and I have just added a "references needed" tag for this entire section. -- Beland 23:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: Every external link leads to a marxist site, is this truly NPOV? --86.131.71.87 17:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're under the heading "Online resources for original Marxist literature" (though I'd quibble the inclusion of libcom.org in there). If you want to add others, feel free to do so or look at combining some of those. It's hardly POV to point to Marxist sites to get Marxist material. Donnacha 17:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, there's no point in multiple links to the same site, so I've reduced them. Donnacha 17:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't a directory or listing of websites. We should point to the small number of comprehensive websites for Marxist classics, like marxists.org, but be careful not to list too many. --Duncan 18:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I've seen the last sentence in the last paragraph in the introduction come and go at least a few times.  Currently, the paragraph reads like this:
With the decline of the Communist governments in Eastern Europe from the late 1980s and the breakup of the Soviet Union on December 8, 1991, communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe. However, around a quarter of the world's population still lives in Communist states, mostly in the People's Republic of China.
I think that mentioning the world population living under nominally communist rule serves the purpose of showing how communism still has influence.  Mentioning the PRC avoids Eurocentrism.  I'm not entirely sure what the problem with the last sentence is - maybe it seems oddly juxtaposed, or maybe it focuses too much on states.  I'm sure I've annoyed someone by putting that sentence back.  We need some kind of consensus here so we stop changing it back and forth. Perhaps a total rewrite of the paragraph? Elustran 01:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is supposed to be about the theory of communism and no definition of communism I've ever heard comes close to describing the state-controlled mixed economy and oppression of modern China. It's about as far away from communism as it's possible to get. Thus, pointing to a large number of people living under a wolf in sheep's clothing has no relevance to the theory. Donnacha 01:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with saying that is that this article has a lot of content regarding states operating under a nominally communist system.  The first part of that paragraph talks about the Soviet Union and its influence in Europe - you could make the same argument that Eastern European states were just oppressive autocracies or oligarchies, not communist states, much like the PRC.  If we mention the influence of the Soviet Union in the context of communism, we also have to mention the influence of the PRC in the context of communism, even though it could be argued that neither state was ever truly communist. Elustran 22:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Donnacha: we should be focusing on the theory of communism.  The number of people living in Communist states is irrelevant to communist theory and does not attest to communism's academic or political influence worldwide.  You raise a legitimate concern, though: Why should we mention one "degenerated worker's state" but not another?  Well, there is a consensus in academia that the PRC does not intend to realize communism; in fact, it has offically and fully re-instated capitalism in its Special Economic Zones.  Moreover, Zemin's Three Represents are widely seen as officially sanctioning capitalism on a nation-wide level.  The USSR, on the other hand, was still officially committed to realizing communism and had not accepted capitalism in place of socialism (production was still guided by five-year plans, rather than by the market, all the way up to 1990). -- WGee 19:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't argue that China has been drifting away from the classic ideals of communism, but this article isn't strictly about theory of communism - it is full of the history and relevant anecdotes that are required to fully elaborate on that theory and its influence in the world.  What remains is that China is nominally communist, and, as such, should be regarded as a communist country, influencing communism worldwide - the fact that China is drifting away from classic communism is a strong component of that influence.  Perhaps it is a comment that would go better elsewhere, or should be reworded, but I just want to establish that it is a relevant comment. Elustran 06:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "This article is about communism as a form of society and as a political movement (in other words, communist theory). For information on Communist organizations, see communist party. For information on communist party–run states, see Communist state."  Thus, information about the PRC or any other Communist state does not belong in this article. -- WGee 21:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a bit simplistic; the theory communism is tied to those who practice it - leaders and party organizers operating within communist governments, for example.  Societies and political movements are almost always tied to the states in which they originated, and it would be imprudent to not address them in that context.  No, detailed information on the inner workings of the PRC does not belong in this article, but basic information that can be used to help gauge the overall global influence of communism does.  To some, the fact that well over a billion people live under a nominally communist government is mind-boggling, and we can't assume that everybody reading this article will already have made that connection (a grade-school student, for example).  Elustran 10:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, detailed information on the inner workings of the PRC does not belong in this article, but basic information that can be used to help gauge the overall global influence of communism does.  The number of people living in the PRC does not attest to the global influence of communism, because that country does not practice any form of communism. -- WGee 19:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To neglect the PRC would be pedantic.  I can understand that you might want to distance communism from countries that have called themselves communist, so I believe the problem here stems from the difference between the ideal of communism that you may want to illustrate and 'communism' as has been practiced.  Perhaps the PRC is not communist under the strictest definition of communism, but China is governed solely by members of the self-described Communist Party of China, which was founded with communist ideals in mind, therefore the PRC and its effects on the world are relevant to any discussion of the current state of communism and communist theory.  I have already said something to this effect: one can partially gauge the influence of communism in the world by the fact that China is governed by a self-described communist party that has drifted from the ideals of communism, and that a great many people are still governed by that party.  The sheer number of people living in the PRC speaks to the lingering effects of the communist ideals on which the nation was founded. Perhaps the collapse of the Soviet Union and the shift in economics in China also say that the ideal of communism has been difficult to adhere to (not that I'd say they did a particularly good job of it in the first place). Elustran 02:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sheer number of people living in the PRC speaks to the lingering effects of the communist ideals on which the nation was founded.  I don't quite follow.  How does the population of the PRC relate to the "lingering effects" of communist ideals?  Also, which communist ideals continue to linger in the in the PRC? -- WGee 02:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The PRC is still socialist, which is an element that remains from its Communist origins.  Attempts at population control and attempts to control thought within China (like the Great Firewall of China) are reminiscent of Maoism.  Maoist thought is still part of the doctrine of the CPC.  Public ownership of enterprise still exists in some form or another.  There are measures to try to shrink the class divide, though the existence of the CPC as an elitist organization seems contradictory.  The state has its roots in communism, and, since no great revolution has occurred since the death of Mao, party members haven't completely drifted away from modes of thought inspired by communism.  Elustran 03:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I disagree with Elustran and agree with the others.  The PRC has completely lost the economic side of communism.  Karm Locke 06:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying it hasn't lost the economic side of communism, just that it retains elements of Communist ideology.  That, combined the fact that it is controlled by a the Communist Party of China make it worth at least a mention in modern communist influences. To say otherwise seems too much a politicized semantic argument - the nomenclature of social movements is largely dictated by those who are involved in those social movements.  I could be wrong, but it seems like people don't want to mention China because it has drifted away from the ideological center of communism, rather than romanticized rebel fighters, as represented by personalties such as Lenin or Guevara. I feel that shows a lack of neutrality. To not discuss China within the context of communism is simply unrealistic. Elustran 06:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last paragraph in introduction 

message: Could there be a section on this one? I mean I think by reading The Giver there is hints and bits of Communist government idoloegies there.
:Since we're discussing a serious and important political theory, sections like that have no place in the article.  In fact, such sections should generally be avoided in all articles. -- WGee 21:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to disagree with WGee. That point would best be mentioned in the The Giver article. Prodaea 19:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communism in pop culture  

message: Can someone tell me how this article explains communism as opposed to Marxism, or Marxism-Leninism? I had always thought imperialism was supposed to be the highest stage of capitalism, but it appears it is Standard Operating Procedure for the comrades on Wikipedia. I'm reminded of the story from Rexroth's Communalism:
:"There is a story that, when the Communist International was formed, a delegate objected to the name. Referring to all these groups he said:'But there are already communists' Lenin answered: 'Nobody ever heard of them, and when we get through with them nobody ever will.'"
Apocryphal or not, it seems apt here. Communism didn't begin or end with Marx. Libertatia 23:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have a good section here on Early Communism, which makes is clear that Communism existed before Marxism. Are you making a suggestion?  --Duncan 09:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually thinking that the Early Communism section was particularly weak, and a little too faithful to Marxist historiographic principles. Anyway, it appears that anarchist communism is having to fight for inclusion, so I won't be so foolish as to attempt to include more Cabet or Ruskin, etc. Libertatia 19:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I too see the article as more a view of Marxism than communism, in a form that leans far too heavily toward pure propaganda. Communism has been the greatest failed political experiment in modern times. Despite that, it's presented as an "ideology" with critisisms merely referenced by the names of critics in a small section at the end. A fair treatment of the subject would bare the facts, including the much needed critisisms that would make the article credible. Rogerfgay 15:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Communism has never failed, it has never been done. The USSR and it's vassal states were Stalinist state capitalist entities. The closest thing to communism that has existed is the Paris Commune. (Demigod Ron 20:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Communism" or "Marxism"? 

message: Responses go here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBKramer (talk • contribs) 
Relates to the Anarchist Communism section.
* The material on anarchist-communism was in the article long before I made it a section to make it easier to find in the article. I expanded it based on another editor's request for sources. It was a footnote to Marxism, ridiculous for a movement that had far more impact than Marxism in the Latin world from Spain to Argentina in the time of the First International. It was so powerful in those days that Marx had Bakunin and his followers expelled and the anarchist international presented a serious alternative to the Marxist ones up until the Russian Revolution (and, even then, Lenin denounced the anarchists, had many of them arrested and sent the Red Army to quash the Ukrainian anarchist communist revolution). In the US in the heyday of the IWW, communism was at its most popular and powerful and it was largely influenced by anarcho-communist Emma Goldman. These ideas were revived in the 60s and were a huge influence on the New Left and Paris 1968. With the fall of the Soviet Union, they were once again revived, first primarily in England (Class War) and then around the world in the anti-globalisation movement, at its core an anarchist movement based on convergence and direct action. Anarchist communism is the main non-Marxist form of communism that has had global impact in the past and continues to have impact today. There are many parts of the world where anarchism is a stronger political force than any of the innumerable Communist sects. Donnacha 23:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard to the objections by 172 below, anarchist communism and communist anarchism seem to have been in use by at least the late 1880s, and in common use by the turn of the century. In fact it appears, from a quick survey of searchable primary source material online, that these terms may have been current somewhat earlier than the term marxism. Nobody is suggesting that term be removed from discussion of 19th century communism. Libertatia 17:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: * Absolute nonsense - The The Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on Anarchism from 1910 (written by Kropotkin) uses the term anarchist-communist. It is far from a term used by contemporary writers. You clearly know nothing about the topic, the Jura Federation first started to describe themselves as such after Bakunin's death. Kropotkin literally wrote the book (and the Britannica entry) on Anarchist Communism. Emma Goldman considered herself as such, with Alexander Berkman publishing What Is Communist Anarchism? in 1929. There is a simple reason most Encyclopedias reference Anarchist Communism is in the Anarchism section rather than the Communism section - space. They rarely repeat the same information in other places. Wikipedia is completely different and offers the ability to be truly comprehensive. Donnacha 19:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment on Anarchist Communism Section 

message: I went ahead and inserted a paragraph on anarchism, addressing the issue in its appropriate context in place of Donnachadelong's section.  We can now close this sterile debate and get back to some real work. 172 | Talk 23:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As written it's wedged into the wrong place. It suggests that Leninism developed from anarchism, not from Marxism. A limited fix would move this down one paragraph. Another fix would group the transitional-state issues in one section, bringing Marxist theory, anarcho-communist theory, Wittvogel's criticisms, etc. together in one place. Another fix would raise anarcho-communism to its own section. Jacob Haller 19:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The short summary is incomplete and, imho, misleading at first reading. Although Bakunin and Kropotkin emphasized agrarianism, they were not opposed to industry. I'm not sure how to discuss anarcho-communism without discussing collectivism and syndicalism which were influenced by, and in turn influenced, anarcho-communism. Jacob Haller 19:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolute nonsense, the point of a Request for comment is to get neutral views. You've completely ignored them and just "compromised" badly. You continue to ignore the historical realities of the Ukraine, Catalonia, the New Left and the anti-globalisation movement that have such a massive impact. Communism != Marxism, yet you're pushing your POV that it is the only real form. Donnacha 19:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was in grad school during the heyday of the New Left. A long time ago my own background was on the left. I bet I know more about the subject than a lot of users, including anyone participating on this talk page. I am not ignoring the subject. But these Western intellectuals were not as notable as a third of the world's population under communist rule for much of the 20th century. If you point me toward a professionally written encyclopedia that devotes a separate section for "anarchist communism," I will consider giving the subject the kind of prominence that you are advocating. For now you are not persuading me. It just seems as if you and a few other avowed anarchist Wikipedia users keep restoring the section through revert warring. 172 | Talk 20:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Communist rule is not a definition of the influence of communist theory. Mao was influenced as much by Kropotkin's ideas as by Marxism, that splits a fifth of the world's population. Ghandi was also influenced by Kropotkin and not Marx. However, this is a pointless debate. The start of the article makes clear - this is about communist theory, not Communist states. Anarchist Communism was a hugely influential form of theory. You, on the other hand, continue to simply ignore anything that contradicts you. Donnacha 20:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mao was influenced as much by Kropotkin's ideas as by Marxism I've never seen that view stated in works by leading, mainstream historians of modern China. The focus of the article is broader than communist theory, also looking at communism as a political movement. 172 | Talk 21:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 172, please stop revert warring on this article. The above discussion indicates quite well what you believe but you have been overruled by a significant number of editors. If you disagree with the paragraph, please propose an alteration to it here rather than reverting.-Localzuk(talk) 21:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did propose an "alteration" offering expanded coverage on anarchism here.  I was ignored ans insulted. The number of users 'overruling' me (many or most of whom self-identify as "anarchists" on their userpages) is immaterial. Whether or not the content is encyclopedic is the relevant issue at stake. Avoid personalizing the matter. So far no one has offered any evidence that any professionally written encyclopedia devotes a separate section for "anarchist communism"-- this is the key to establishing consensus. Now, back to what was on the table before you interjected, I was asking Donnachadelong for a source from a mainstream historian of modern China for his claim Mao was influenced as much by Kropotkin's ideas as by Marxism. I was also explaining to Donnachadelong that the foci of the article include not just communist theory but also communism as a political movement. 172 | Talk 21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Not just..., but also" -- yet you continue to object to the inclusion of the only major non-Marxist form of communism with any continuing influence. Plus, you continue to ignore my mentions of the Ukraine, Catalonia and Lenin's repression of the anarchists in Russia. As for Mao and Kropotkin, a quick googling threw up review of Arif Dirlih, The Origins of Chinese Communism, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1989. "In the case of Mao Zedong the writer supports Scalapino’s analysis that the strongest influence on him in 1919 was Kropotkin, whose thought he described as “broader and more far-reaching” than that of “the party of Marx” (p.178), and which he continued to support until the end of 1920 (p.206)." And, other than Marx, see the Guardian newspaper's obit of Ba Jin. Donnacha 22:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stay focused on the dispute at hand. I have inserted a compromise abridgement of your section on "anarchist communism" . You keep reverting back to your own version without modification.  Neither your section nor mine deals with "the Ukraine, Catalonia and Lenin's repression of the anarchists in Russia." So there is frankly nothing to say in response to your "mentions" of those subjects. As for Mao and Kropotkin, please point me to something other than a site like marxists.org or a left-leaning newspaper or journal in order to support the claim "Mao was influenced as much by Kropotkin's ideas as by Marxism." Looking through mainstream Western political science and history texts on modern Chinese politics, such as Kenneth Lieberthal's new edition of Governing China, I don't even see that there is a single mention of Kropotkin in the indexes. Perhaps a ground-breaking revisionist account of modern China demonstrating that just about all China specialists have gotten it wrong all these years will be published some day, but for now, this has not been done, and Wikipedia is not the place for this to be done. 172 | Talk 23:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this is totally disingenuous. I started working on the section to add properly sourced references. I've got a pile of books on the floor beside me to properly source material about the move from Bakuninism to Anarchist Communism in the Jura Federation, Kropotkin's writing, the development of the movement in Spain and the Ukraine and the influence on the IWW. I intend to keep it short, so I wanted to spend some time drafting it properly and finding the best sources for it to distill it down. Instead of allowing that happen, you initiated an edit war. As for the link from marxists.org, it's a link to a review of The Chinese Anarchist Movement, (Berkeley: Center for Chinese Studies, 1961), properly cited. The other link is to an obit of a prominent Chinese writer from a mainstream newspaper in the UK. It's well known that Mao initiated many elements of Kropotkin's ideas about rural revolution - something Marxism, as a largely industrial ideology - didn't include. This is exactly why Anarchist Communism tended to be very strong in largely rural regions like the Ukraine, Catalonia, China and India. Of course, Mao took the social and economic organisation ideas without the anarchist parts. Some more sources - Kerry Thornley: "For Mao had read Kropotkin and Bakunin along with his Marx." As for Wikipedia being the place for this, have I tried to put it into the article? No. I'm just disputing your ridiculous contention that Anarchist Communism isn't worth inclusion because it hasn't had enough influence. Donnacha 23:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're getting sidetracked here. I am fully aware that there is a plethora of literature to be found out there arguing that anarchism has had more influence than most observers generally recognize. I understand, given the biographical information on your userpage, you are interested in the history of anarchism. You probably have interesting things to say about the subject. This article, however, is supposed to be merely a very general overview on communism meant for a very general audience. Writing such an entry and staying on topic is difficult. That's why we should look toward professionally written encyclopedias as guideposts concerning what we should be doing here. Other encyclopedias do not follow the structure that you seem to be advocating, i.e prominently devoting entire separate sections to "anarchist communism." If I am wrong, please point me toward other encyclopedias. Again, I am open to expanding the coverage on anarchism, but not adopting an unorthodox structure in this article. 172 | Talk 23:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia - a truly unorthodox concept based on drawing together various viewpoints and knowledged to build comprehensive information based on verifiable sources. You seek to make the split in the First International a footnote to Marxism. It was the most important event in the development of international socialism. You're right, my interest (and expertise) is in anarchist history - much of it suppressed and hidden by official historians on the left and right. As other editors have pointed out to you, reproducing other encyclopedias is not what Wikipedia is about or aiming to do. You're inventing rules and breaching agreed guidelines, such as WP:OWN - "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus." Donnacha 00:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been on Wikipedia nearly four years. I played a major role in shaping many content guidelines on this site. Spare me sarcastic "welcome to Wikipedia" greeting. Wikipedia is "truly unorthodox" in terms of the process by which the articles are drafted, but Wikipedia is not the place for a "truly unorthodox" product (articles). Again, you keep diverting attention from my request that you show me examples of other encyclopedias following the structure that you seem to be advocating, i.e prominently devoting entire separate sections to "anarchist communism." 172 | Talk 00:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I have attempted yet another compromise to keep this article consistent with the coverage found in professionally written encyclopedias while addressing the issues that personally interest a lot of Wikipedia editors. I went ahead and inserted an abridgement of Donnachadelong's section different from my earlier paragraph.  I am open to modfication and exapansion of the paragraph, but, again, a separate section is inconsistent with other encyclopedias. 172 | Talk 22:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I like how your (172) idea of a compromise is make a change and then declare the issue settled. that seems extremely arrogant considering that few others agree with the change and you did not even discuss the change here before declaring the matter "settled." how can it be a compromise if you (172) were the only person involved with the change? Who are you compromising with? Who besides yourself was consulted on the compromise and who besides your self agreed to it? You may think that because are a supposed "professional" historian that you have more legitmacy here than other editors but that is not the case when it comes to wikipedia. if you can't deal with that than you probaly should not edit wikipedia at all. Blockader 00:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that sort of comment is useful. It's important to assume good faith and to propose ways forward towards agreement. Suggesting that other editors leave Wikipedia does not help us. --Duncan 14:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What is specifically wrong with my compromise abridgement of Donnachadelong's section? How do your accusations that I am "extremely arrogant" and think that I have "more legitamcy here than other editors" help reach a compromise between you and Donnachadelong on the one hand, and WGee and me on the other? My compromise was made in good faith, inserting a section on the material that interests Donnachadelong based on his own writing. The attempted compromise covers most of the material uploaded in Donnachadelong's sections; it's just shorter and preserves the established structure of the article, avoiding a section that forks off this article with a discussion of anarchism. Again, in advocating the creation of a new section on "anarchist communism," Donnachadelong is possibly proposing the most sweeping structural change to this article in over a year. This change deserves a more serious discussion than stuff about how 'more people agree with Donnachadelong than 172 so 172 must be wrong and aggrogant to voice his concerns'. 172 | Talk 01:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "anarchist communist" issue is now settled

message: Communism in its modern sense emerged during the English Civil War with the Diggers! This is ridiculous. I'm not going to revert again today due to the 3RR, but come off it, it's now historically inaccurate. Communism did not begin with Marxism and the First International! Between the time of the First International and the Russian Revolution, anarchism and Marxism were competing ideas and anarchism was more popular in southern Europe, Latin America, Japan and China. The Russian revolution did have a major impact on that, but in that 30 years or so, they were virtually neck and neck. Many argue that the original system of Soviets was, in fact, anarchist, or, at least, libertarian, and that the Bolshevik system was not the choice of the majority, but just most militarily successful. Donnacha 23:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point well taken. This was an unintentional error on my part. I will change the heading to the emergence of 'modern' communism to make clear that we are dealing with the emergence of communism in the 19th century, or in Marx's time. 172 | Talk 23:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are still pushing your POV that communism is the same thing as Marxism and its descendents and anarchism is a footnote. You're wrong. There should be two sections that clearly define what they're about, not an oblique reference to "modern communism". You continue to oppose consensus on this page, which is a clear breach of policies. I've requested Mediation on this already, despite your rudeness the last time I suggested it. You claim I'm pushing my point of view, I think this edit on my own favoured political concept disproves that. I want ALL relevant information included on topics, in keeping with what Wikipedia is about. You, on the other hand, continue to act like you own this article and Socialism. Donnacha 23:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say that "communism is the same thing as Marxism." Quit spoling the well by attributing to me views that I do not hold, or making accusations that I "oppose consensus," think I "own" this article, and do not understand "what Wikipedia is about."  What specific disagreements do you have with my summarized version of your paragraph I attempted to insert as a compromise? Do you have any evidence that the structural change you are advocating (devoting a specfic section of the article to "anarchist communism") is consistent with other encyclopedias? 172 | Talk 00:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 172, please stop trying to compare us to other encyclopedias! Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, we have unlimited space so can cover all topics. As it seems you are the only editor saying we shouldn't have such a section, consensus is against you - so lay off it and allow the section to be created.-Localzuk(talk) 01:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it seems like my weighing in is not needed, but as I've said a few times on this page there really should be more mention of anarcho-communism. So yeah, that's about it. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 02:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the depiction of 172 as an arrogant, intransigent POV-pusher, he has said several times that he is open to expanding the coverage on anarchism; and so am I.  But restructuring the article in an unorthodox way that would give undue weight to anarchist communism is not the way to do it.  Since this article is organized historiographically, as it should be, different ideologies and movements are to be discussed in the context of their time period; thus, the "oblique" section about the emergence of modern communism would be the appropriate place to discuss anarchist communism. -- WGee 04:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He only started talking to people after unilaterally reverting my edits, without discussion, four or five times. Again, the point that, between the First International and the Russian Revolution, anarchism and Marxism were almost equal in popularity. Someone please tell me a Marxist figure as popular in the US as Emma Goldman. For example, in Spain, the Marxist UGT membership rose to 1.25 million in 1934, while the CNT's membership stood at over 1.5 million.. If we're talking about the period of the emergence of a modern socialist movement, the whole section needs to be revised. A mention of Proudhon needs to be added as an influence on Marx and Bakunin, the split needs to come at the top and serious work needs to be put in to show the parallel and divergent growth of both movements. Donnacha 09:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Review WP:NPOV, specifically the section on "Undue Weight." Making the "Anarchist Communist" section the third major-section is a violation of our policies. JBKramer 14:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very aware of the policy and reject your claim that inclusion of Anarchist Communism is undue weight. There are two primary forms of communism that continue to this day. Both developed at the same time and split at a specific point in time. The continued to compete at virtually equal levels of popularity until the Russian Revolution, when Marxist-Leninism became the dominant form and subsequently split into Trotskyism and Stalinism. If you consider Marxism, as distinct from its modified descendents, it has had very little impact. I have continuously given historical examples of the importance of anarchist communist thought and influence, which contradict any claims of undue weight. The CNT was bigger than the UGT in the Spanish Civil War. Makhno's militias won the civil war in the Ukraine before they were crushed militarily by Trotsky and the Red Army. If your definition of communism is those oppressors who crushed all alternatives, why not change the initial paragraph to fit. Donnacha 17:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think that JBKramer has done some good work on the article. Comments on this Talk page do suggest that  full elaboration of Anarchist Communism is needed, which is why thyere is a page on that topic specifically. To recap the interactions between marxism and anarchism would be beyond the scope of the article. Popularity of figures in the US does not seem to be a useful criterion here. --Duncan 14:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about the popularity of Emma Goldman, it's the fact that she was one of the most important figures in the only substantial left-wing movement in the US. My point, which I continually repeat, is that anarchism was as important and as popular in many parts of the world as Marxism until the Russian Revolution. Donnacha 17:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is disputing that anarchism was important in many parts of the world before the Russian Revolution. So are many other subjects that are mentioned in even less detail than anarchism. What JBKramer, WGee, and I are disputing is that a separate header for "anarchist communism," restructuring the article in an unorthodox way, would give the subject undue weight. 172 | Talk 20:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You've certainly changed your tune since the times you removed all information on anarchism from the article. If you acknowledge the importance of anarchism, the predominant form of which has been anarchist communism, at the same time as Marxism, then what's your issue? Putting headers in the article makes it easier to navigate, it's not an attempt to push anything. Realistically, there's quite a bit that should be fixed in the article, for example, the mention of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is not part of communist theory, but Marx's idea of getting there, the major dispute with anarchists. The bit about the US (except McCarthy) was largely against anarchists and the IWW, yet that's not mentioned. The intro should be a lot shorter, with the parts about theory and history properly separated. The petty snipe at Trotskyism is unnecessary in the first paragraph, etc. If you are actually willing to improve the article, rather than push your POV, I'm happy to help, but you need to start recognising other people's valid ideas. Donnacha 21:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not changed my stance or my tune. Granted, at first I removed your section, but I was hoping that you would summarize the material yourself. You did not do that, so I took the initiative and expanded the article’s coverage on anarchism, based on the material you uploaded, myself, even though I happen to think other areas of the article are in even greater need of expansion than content on anarchism. I have always been open to expanding coverage on anarchism, but against restructuring the article in an unorthodox way. Regarding the headers, they not only make the article easier to navigate, they determine the structure of the article. They automatically generate an outline at the top of the page. They are a very big deal. Regarding the other ideas about changing the article you mention, I am open to them. I am not here to push an ideology; I am only here to keep the article encyclopedic. So I have tangled with users from just about every point on the political spectrum, including all kinds of anarchists, Stalinists, and other leftists on the one hand; and libertarianians, Reganites, and Ayn Rand devotees on the other. Anyhow, we shouldn't get distracted from the issues on the table at the moment. For now I still think we need to reach a final compromise on (a) the headers and (b) my summary of your new section. 172 | Talk 22:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some work on the section to focus on the historical stuff and added sub-headers which break up the content better. I'm happy to discuss changes, but there needs to be division between Marxism and Anarchist Communism for ease of navigation and linking to the main article. Donnacha 22:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For now, I can accept breaking the "emergence of modern communism" section into subsections for (a) Marxism and (b) and something like "other currents." As JBKramer told you in an edit summary, a "whole section on [anarchist communism] provides undue weight." I will not be able to accept a separate subheader for "anarchist communism" until you can point us toward another encyclopedia that adopts a similar structure. 172 | Talk 22:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What other currents? There is only one major non-Marxist form of communism that has created societies - anarchist communism. No other communist ideology has achieved anything like the Ukrainian or Catalonian systems. Donnacha 00:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The title I'm proposing gives us some leyway to use the section to possibly discuss communism's relationship with other movements during the period. Frankly, that's already more than I can comfortablty yield until I see some evidence that any other encyclopedia structures its discussion of communism in the 19th century in the way you are proposing. 172 | Talk 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The emergence of communism?????

message: Donnachadelong keeps reverting back to his unedited section on "anarchist communism," without seeking middle ground with users open to expanding coverage on his subjects of interest, but against restructuring the article. The lastest revert occurred just minutes ago. Earlier, JBKramer had restored the compromise draft, with the edit summary whole section on this provides undue weight.  WGee has also voiced concerns about Donnachadelong's attempts to restructure the article. The concerns of JBKramer, WGee, and me clearly indicate that there is no consensus behind restoring Donnachadelong's version without modification. Our concerns should not be ignored, even if Donnachadelong can manage to revert compromise drafts more times than we can manage to edit and propose them. 172 | Talk 22:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about inadvertantly getting into the middle of this, guys; I just reverted this in the middle of other edits. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh? unedited? Please read what I've put in, I've massively edited the section. Three people does not make consensus for a rejected compromise. I haven't reverted, I've changed it completely - it's got a sub-header, not a primary header, it references a range of historical examples I was planning to put in before you started the edit war. Please, stop misrepresenting this. Donnacha 22:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted you've edited it, but in the process your version is even further than what JBKramer, WGee, and I can support. I proposed an abridgement of your section. Yet your section seems to be getting longer and longer each time you revert back to your version. You're not helping JBKramer, WGee, and me get closer toward reaching a compromise with you. 172 | Talk 22:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you want a section without any historical examples. That's nice. The three of you do not equal "consensus". Wikipedia is not supposed to replicate other encyclopedias, it's supposed to aim to be comprehensive without the space limitations of print publications. There's tons of content about Marxist sects, far more than I think is necessary, but I'm not trying to remove them. I'm simply including absolutely valid historical information about a variant form of communism that has had enough impact to warrant inclusion. Donnacha 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree that it has had enough impact to warrant inclusion and must insist that you provide reliable SECONDARY sources to demonstrate its substantial impact. JBKramer 23:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have included a secondary source - it's a book of anarchist history. Primary source about Emma Goldman is Emma Goldman's writings. A book about Emma Goldman is a secondary source. I'll get some more diverse sources later, but there's nothing wrong with Peter Marshall's book. Donnacha 23:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That book sources the importance of communist anarchists with respect to Anarchy, not with respect to Communism, and as such, does not demonstrate that they merit a top-level header in an article about Communism. JBKramer 23:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how Wikipedia works, stop trying to provoke an edit war while we're trying to reach a consensus. Contrary to what 172 says, I didn't revert to an unedited version, I've stuck with his header, added sub-heads and edited the article to put major historical examples. Donnacha 23:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You continue to add it as a top-level header. This must stop. JBKramer 23:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect, it was a sub-header. Your latest edit is completely ridiculous, anarchist communism grew out of the anarchist side of the split in the First International. It's contemporaneous with Marxism, Proudhon influenced Marx and started the anarchist movement which was largely communistic by the formation of the IWA. You are now going against what 172 agreed to accept (for the moment) above. Donnacha 23:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never agreed to a subheading for "anarchist communism." Respond to JBKramer's comment that your examples demonstrate the importance of communist anarchists with respect to the anarchist movement, not communism. Please point to other encyclopedias that adopt the structure you are advocating. Asking you to do this is not saying that Wikipedia must follow other encyclopedias, but rather to get an idea how well established the views upon which your proposals are based are anchored in the secondary literature focusing on communism at a very general level. 172 | Talk 00:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Histories of communism are absolutely suspect, written as they generally are by pro-Communists (thus anti-anarchists) or anti-Communists (thus anti-anarchists). I note you have no objection to the section on Trotskyism, which has been less influential than anarchist communism. Anarchist communists, unlike Marxist-Leninists, have actually achieved societies that meet the definition of communism (in Catalonia and the Ukraine) for admittedly short periods (stateless being a key element). Their importance to communism is massive, in that Bakunin's arguments against Marxism have been proved right. You continue to equate communism with Communism, anarchist movements have been primarily communist since the days of the Jura Federation. No other form of anarchism has created such mass movements. Donnacha 00:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop making this into an ideological issue. There is a serious academic literature on the history of communism written by professional historians and political scientists which influences the content of professionally written encyclopedias. We do not have to be getting into advocacy here. We can look toward professionally written encyclopedias to get an idea about what we are supposed to be doing here. 172 | Talk 00:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All historical writing is an ideological issue. Anarchism is the most slandered, lied about and suppressed ideology there is, attacked from all sides. The split in the First International, the influence on Catalonia, the membership of the CNT, the influence of Goldman and Berkman and the subsequent repression, the short term success of Makhno et al in the Ukraine - these are historical facts. All involved anarchist communists. You can either accept history, or you can refer to other peoples' interpretations - which is totally against what wikipedia is about. Please just agree to mediation and let some neutral parties sort it out. Donnacha 00:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Amen. 172 | Talk 00:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert warring

message: I disagree with including a section or subsection on "anarchist communism." I'd remove the section, but I want to avoid making any bold edits for around another 24 hours, while I get an idea on how open Donnachadelong is to compromise. If the section is included, it cannot go under "other anti-revisionist currents." "Anti-revisionism" refers to Marxist-Leninist movements that broke with the CPSU following Khrushchev's '56 CPSU 20th Congress speech denouncing Stalin, never to anarchists. Thus, I made the following edit.  I will post another compromise draft attempting to work with other editors while keeping the article consistent with professionally written encyclopedias and the secondary academic literature on the subject in about a day; for now I just wanted to correct the error. 172 | Talk 00:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So now, in an article that is supposed to reflect the historical development of communism, a major strand that emerged from the First International is placed after Stalinism, Maoism and some obscure 1970s split. It also has a NPOV notice on it because of "undue weight" despite it including major historical examples. Great stuff. Please sign up to the mediation and get someone neutral in to sort this out. Donnacha 00:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. I think the content should be moved back up to the "emergence of modern communism" section. That's the part of the article dealing with the late-19th century and early 20th century. No need for mediation on that point. This is where I disagree with you: (1) I think the subsection "anarchist communism" should be renamed something like "other currents" (2) the focus of the subsection should be broadened and (3) your new material can be summarized. 172 | Talk 00:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Donnacha, you may have provided some examples of anarchism's real influence in world politics, but you've failed to consider how that influence compares to Communism's; consequently, you've given anarchism too much prominence (it is discussed at roughly the same length as Trotskyism, Stalinism, and Maoism).  Reputable encyclopedias indicate that anarchism's importance in relation to the communist movement is not significant enough for anarchism to merit its own section. -- WGee 06:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, could you explain what's wrong with 172's proposal above? -- WGee 06:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If people would actually read my answers, then they wouldn't need to keep asking such questions, as I've already answered. Firstly, anarchism has had a greater influence on world politics than Trotskyism by any measure. 172 dropped his complaints about Kropotkin's influence on Mao, so it's there too. If this article is supposed to be organised historically, there are two major elements to the period of the emergence - Marxism and anarchist communism. For the upteenth time, their influence was around equal until the Russian Revolution. As for 172's proposal - what's the third current? There are no other major trends in communism other than Marxism and anarchism. Finally, I'm tired of being ignored and facing people constantly repeating themselves. I've opened a mediation request, please sign up and get a someone else to judge this. Donnacha 09:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) I don't know what to make of your claim "anarchism has had a greater influence on world politics than Trotskyism by any measure" without supporting it with citations of secondary academic literature. (2) I did not 'drop my complaints about Kropotkin's influence on Mao.' There is far from a consensus among specialists on modern China around that claim. (3) I don't buy your claim that the article must discuss two "major elements to the period of the emergence" because other encyclopedias do not do this. (4) The "other currents" section could also discuss Russian Marxism and populism. The Britannica article, for example, discusses the following in the second page of the communism article, in the intro: Marxism had been known and studied in Russia for at least 30 years before Lenin took it up at the end of the 19th century. The first intellectual leader of the Russian Marxists was G.V. Plekhanov. Implicit in the teachings of Plekhanov was an acceptance of the fact that Russia had a long way to go before it would reach the stage at which a proletarian revolution could occur, and a preliminary stage would inevitably be a bourgeois democratic regime that would replace the autocratic system of Tsarism ... Plekhanov, like most of the early Russian Marxist leaders, had been reared in the traditional Russian revolutionary movement broadly known as Populism, a basic tenet of which was that the social revolution must be the work of the people themselves, and the task of the revolutionaries was only to prepare them for it. But there were more impatient elements within the movement, and it was under their influence that a group called “People's Will” broke off from the Populist organization “Land and Freedom” in 1879. Both groups were characterized by strict discipline and highly conspiratorial organization; “People's Will,” however, refused to share the Populist aversion to political action, and in 1881 some of its members succeeded in assassinating Tsar Alexander II. (Peter Kropotkin, however, is not mentioned in once in the Britannica article. Notice that the communism article is not listed in the search results for "Kropotkin" in a search on the site.  172 | Talk 16:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Concur, I couldn't have said it better myself than WGee above. Donnacha, please address those points above. 172 | Talk 08:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My last edit

message: I think the Request for Mediation is premature. In many respects this is a dispute about content, which can only be resolved on the Talk pages. I do suggest that editors do try to break their proposals down into smaller pieces and discuss them on the talk page rather than get into reverting. There's much that we can agree on (for example, a mention of Goldman is probably something we can agree on). However, while we are reverting we will simply be in a disfunctional loop that prevents us from discussing content. I don't see how mediation can help us to move forward if we don't leave the articles along until we have consensus here on the Talk page. --Duncan 10:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is beyond a simple content dispute and is a revert war with some clear examples of disruptive editing. Mediation, where someone independent makes a call, is the best solution. Donnacha 13:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Admin unlurks.  Mediation is an excellent idea here.  I fully support it.  Admin relurks. DurovaCharge! 15:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Mediation  

message: Hi there. I don't quite understand why this bit is in the section on anachist communism: Following the split between those associated with Marx and Bakunin at the First International, the anarchists formed the International Workers Association. Anarcho-syndicalism became one of the dominant forms of anarchist organisation, arguing that labor unions, as opposed to Communist parties, are the organizations that can change society. The Spanish Confederación Nacional del Trabajo became one of the largest anarcho-syndicalist organisations in the world and played a major role in the revolutionary period of 1930s Spain and in the Spanish Civil War. The IWA that found founded after the split in the First International didn't survive; the current IWA was founded  in the 1920s. I don't see the reason t link to it. Nor do I understand the ention on anarcho snydicalism: couldn't we take this our and add in a few more sentences to discuss the differences between anarchist communists and other communists? --Duncan 14:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the IWA page, it's a mess and needs sorting out. Anarcho-syndicalism did decline and then was revived to become a major force in Europe between the wars (not just Spain, but in the UK and the US with the largely anarcho-syndicalist IWW). And the fact that, due to massive repression, organisations didn't survive is not a reason not to mention them. As I've said, the German KDP should also be mentioned. Donnacha 17:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the rationale for this bit on anarchism? 

message: I think the into is just a bit long, and the Cold War years is just a bit short.  Any opinions?  •Jim62sch• 13:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but looking at the intro, it's pretty tightly written, and all but a few points are essential to the subject. The only paragraph I think could be cut is the one on the "history of anti-communism in the United States." To be honest, I'm hesitant to modify the intro because POV-warriors may show up. Unlinke the intros to many other controversial political topics, it's stable and serves its purpose. 172 | Talk 20:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What did you have in mind, exactly? -- WGee 23:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Re: What about Cold War years? I think the section should be broken up rather than expanded. Chronologically and topically, the section's focus overlaps with that of the one above it-- "The growth of modern communism" (dealing with the growth and fragmentation of Marxism-Leninism into various different schools of communism following the Russian Revolution and into the Cold War era). The material under "Cold War years" deals with the following: (1) the postwar occupation of Eastern Europe and (2) expansion of communism in the Third World). Point #1 can be subsumed under the subsection on "Stalinism" of "growth of modern communism"; much of point #2 can go under the subsection "Maoism." The rest (the stuff on the pro-Soviet Third World Communist parties, e.g., Cuba and Vietnam) can go under a new subsection like "communism and Third World 'national liberation movements.'" (By the way, I happen to be the source of the problem, I believe. I don't remember why I structured the article like that.) In sum, I think we should fix the structure first, then the content. 172 | Talk 06:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two thoughts

message: Please see comment at Talk:Communist party. --Soman 09:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dvision of material of Communism articles 

message: I've started a temp page at User:Soman/temp-Communism, in order to build up a section on the state of Communism internationally today. Please contribute by putting 3-8 sentences on the context of the communist movement in any country. --Soman 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communism worldwide 

message: The lead section is far to large in my opinion and needs cutting back and some of it moving to relevant sections of the article - as it stands it is to heavy and impenetrable for a basic summary/intro - PocklingtonDan 21:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now this has already been commented on above. Something definitely needs doing. I don't know the topic well enough to do the pruning myself I'ma fraid! - PocklingtonDan 21:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead section huge - needs decimating 

message: The intro states that a quarter of the world's population lives in communist states.  This is an oxymoron.  The intro also states that communism is stateless.  I propose to clarify this by adding that the stated goals of these states are communism, however, they are clearly not yet communist.
(JoeCarson 20:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about "in states that pursue Communism"? Or we could link it to Communist state to explain the meaning; although I believe that in Wikipedia we shouldn't use this term.--cloviz 15:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Small clarification: The text refers to Communist states, that is, states with Communist parties in power; not to "communist states", which would be an oxymoron. "... states that pursue Communism" is equally bizarre, as it would mean states that wish to place a Communist party in power. As long as the clarification is made that people live in Communist states and not "communist states", I think it's fine and should be left as is. ~Switch t 08:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Communist" States

message: My only concern is the red bar above "Communism" in the table box. Is it necessary that all things "communist" are red? Zahir0617 07:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good place to ask this question is at Template talk:Communism. Xiner (talk, email) 14:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:Communism sidebar]]

message: Sadly lacking in the description of the Red Terror, Trostky's murder of the two Popes of the Russsian Orthodox Church, 20-40 million plus murdered under leninism- stalinism, the burning of catholics in their churches in the Ukraine, Boris Pasternak's description of Trotsky as a nuerotic murderer, Stalin's murder of his wife, Lenins death by syphillis, pervert Lazar Kaganovich comparing the take over of Russia to mother rape ie we ripped the skirts off mother russia, Beria's pedophile obsession  and rapes of girls as young as 8, 30 million Chinese deaths under Mao, 4 million deaths under the Khmer Rouge
Trostky's influence on Paul Wolfowitx, William Kristol and other neocons.  The conversion of the children of communists to Christianity.  China becoming Christians so that 1 in 10 in China today is a Christian.  Russia's wholesale renunciation of over 70 years of communism.  The Rosenbergs and other communist traitors in the USA.  Modern COmmunists such as Lynn Stewart Ross aiding and abetting Al Queda and her criminal conviction.  Lori Berenson playing the revolutionary hero in Peru and its consequences.
Some books to mention Court of the Red Tsar, Dr Zhivago, Alexander Solzhenitsyns One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, NYTIMES Magazine exculpatory article What would you do?  A communist hungarian doctor's murder of innocents in a russian village, Sen Harry Truman's Senate Committe Report
To be blunt this article belongs on the pages of the old Pravda.  It is not history, it is progaganda. 
Paleocon 20:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Lenin's dying of syphilis is something worth noting in an encyclopaedia entry on Communism. Right. You might find the entry you're looking for here, perhaps. If not, you can edit it to your heart's content. ~Switch t c g 04:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A dis informative piece, could have been written by Kaganovich