Talk:Communism/Archive 11

message: Maybe there should be a section on the impossiblity of communism, and the fact that no country ever achieved true communism. Although we call the Chinese Communists and USSR communists, they're are all actually socialist. If a state was truly communist, America wouldn't even need to fight the state because they'd throw flowers at us.
:You should understand that achieving communism is a struggle and a long term process that socialist states who have communist parties undertake. Please do not edit this article. Humbabba 01:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only Austrians claim communism/socialism is impossible.  Most other economists just believe it's very difficult.JoeCarson 00:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a matter of personal opinion, not fact, many people, such as myself, believe it is possible, perhaps something should be added on the difference between communist countries and stalinist countries such as the USSR and China  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossibility of Communism 

message: I'm a trockist but I don't know English good enough to write academically. Please work on it to develop. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.99.236.152 (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Komutan [[Coşkucan Özkul]] 

message: Is there an article on that subject - a parent article to Polish communism, Communism in Colombia, or :Category:Communism in the United Kingdom? Subjects such as Communism in Germany, Communism in France, etc. are certainly notable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Communism by nationality

message: Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production.
common ownership of the means of production.
I thought that was socialism. Communism means no personal property. Xavier cougat 17:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Common ownership is the opposite of personal property. There is no contradiction. --Duncan 21:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But in this article it states 'common ownership of means of production' to me that is socialims. Communism means common ownership of almost everything. Xavier cougat 12:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Socialism and Communism are not chemical elements: there is not precise definition of where they differ that is commonly accepted. Often, the same ideas are descrived using the same terms: some people, including Lenin, refuised to call themselves Socialist because of the crisis of the socialist parties. Others refuse to call themselves communist because of the work of the Communist parties. Certainly, Socialism has more meanings, in that - for example - many people in the US might think of Canada as being socialist. Not all definitions of socialism involve the common ownwership of the means of production. However, and unlike the difference socialisms, all notions of communist involve the common ownership of the means of production and a classless society. --Duncan 07:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No I disagree there should be a precise definition. A sociologist I believe would want that so to claim scientific credibility. Yes we can mention the commonly used usage. But I do believe there is a precise scientific, academic definition. In communism there is muss less private ownership than in socialism. Now to call Canada socialist is simply wrong. Actully I think Communism might be a subset of socialism. Xavier cougat 14:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we understand each other's views. If you want to find some references, then please do being some back to the talk page. I think you're broadly right to view communist as a subset of socialism. That means you cannot define socialism as not being communism, and more than you can say that fruits are not oranges. --Duncan 18:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it already has been sourced. I really am not going to change it unless someone else is with me. Now socialism is not communism. No more than mammals are dogs. Fruit does not = orange. If you have trouble with that concept I can see there is no need to go on. It really isnt worth it to me.  Xavier cougat 19:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does not seem correct 

message: a great sub heading would be the conversion of communists to Christianity from Boris Yeltsin to Vlad Putin.  Also the children of the great atheist leaders, Stalin's daughter, Svetlana, Kruschevs sons, Gorbachev's children...it's hilarious.  & let us not forget the jewish burial for one of Stalin's henchmen, Lazar Kaganovich.  According to Sebag Montefiore in  his book Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, ISBN-10: 1400076781  Zioniev one of the troika that mercelessly murdered Christians when it was his turn to fall into the atheist killing machine cried out "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord".  The jewish NKVD agents who killed Zioniev regaled Stalin with the story and put much emphasis on Zioniev's jewish accent complete to the rolling of the rrr's.  
The book is an eye opener. Unsigned comment.
:That would be rather marginal for an article on Communism, but could fit some article on Christianity in the USSR.--Duncan 07:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion of the communists; Boris Yeltsin had a Christian Rite of Burial 

message: This is my first time posting a comment on Wikipedia, and frankly it might not belong here. This is in regards to the image under the communism banner; I believe it to be a derisive and inappropriate banner for articles based on this school of thought for the following reasons. First, the image of the hammer and cycle, while the banner of the (arguably) most famous Marxist nation in history, also represents, in the minds of may people, authoritarianism and oppression, thusly it becomes a negative communicative act, in that the image characterizes the whole of Marxism, as supportive of the policies of the Soviet Union (the aforementioned country). However the Soviet paradigm was drastically different from Marx’s vision, in that firstly that nation was perpetually mired in the dictatorship of the proletariat stage, never making an effort to abolish the state or indeed class. Secondly it is my contention that there are many other images which could, and should be used, (a photo of Marx?) which are not as derisive and do not encourage a, frankly, incorrect view of communism as a school of thought. Thusly because the current image represents a negative communicative act, which inherently goes against the “NPOV” ideal of Wikipedia, and since there are many images which comply with NPOV, in that they do not conjure biased thoughts/images, I believe that the image should be changed. I will also post this on the main communism page.
: Firstly, please don't edit anything on the article page just yet.  Secondly, The hammer and sickle, while used by the USSR isn't only used by those who liked the USSR.  It is a image that represents the union of the industrial workers and the peasants.  I don't think that any image of Marx would be a good thing for the banner, as the communism serious also includes anarcho-communism.  While I understand (I think) your point of view, I disagree.  ~AFA Imagine I swore. 21:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Banner 

message: By that same token, religious communism is also bunched in this series; I hardly think that the hammer and cycle is appropriate for that movement. Indeed with so many schools of thought lumped into this series, any image might be inappropriate; indeed grouping these schools of thought grouped together in a series might be inappropriate. In any case I strongly urge someone to either change or remove the current banner image, which is associated irrevocably with the Soviet Union, in favor of a less derisive image or, better yet, no image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.88.169.0 (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Banner