Talk:Communist revolution

message: How would/should the Cultural Revolution fit into this article? --Countakeshi (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Revolution 

message: Question: Should we list only the most notable communist revolutions, or all communist revolutions? Some of the revolutions currently listed in this article are tiny and quite insignificant, even in the context of their own countries' history (let alone on the international stage!). I would suggest trimming the list down to the most important ones, but I'd like to hear IZAK's opinion first. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Now let's see... the Guinea-Bissauan Revolution or the events in Ethiopia were arguably insignificant (certainly not as significant as the Russian Revolution or the Vietnam War!). But you make a good point that we should present a wider view of communist revolutions throughout history, and this requires a long list such as the one we have now. Very well, I'll agree to it - but you should also agree that this article, being a disambig page, is no place to start writing about advocacy and criticism of communist revolutions. I replaced your last sentence in the intro with one pointing the reader to other articles where these matters are discussed more extensively. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Mihnea: Had you lived in Africa you would not have looked at the African Communist-led revolutions as "insignificant" I assure you! So I think this list is pretty comprehensive (after all, there were not many Communist revolutions in the last century) so it's important that they all be mentioned (large or small) because even the "minor" ones involved the deaths of large numbers of humans, often in the hundreds of thousands at least. To only have a "glowing" introduction about Communism is in itself the self-same advocacy you deplore. It is not academically or factually incorrect to present the most widely-held critical interpretation of Communism. IZAK 07:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Armed conflicts (including revolutions) tend to kill people, of course - that's why they're armed conflicts. I was talking about significance in a historical and geopolitical sense. But it doesn't matter, I've conceded this point to you. Now, regarding the intro: It is not "glowing" - it merely states a fact acknowledged by communists and anti-communists alike (that a communist revolution is a revolution which aims to establish communism - what could be more simple than that?). A "glowing" introduction would sound something like this: "A communist revolution is a proletarian revolution that is inspired by the noble ideas of Marxism and aims to liberate the working class by replacing the unjust system of capitalism with socialism, as the first step towards reaching the final long-term goal of ending the exploitation of man by man and building a communist society, with freedom, equality and prosperity for all." Remember, this is a disambig page. If we start presenting criticisms (or advocacy!) of communism, we're going off-topic. There are other articles for discussing that - and I gave links to them right below the intro. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Say, should we mention that the communists supplied the Cubans in Africa and they fought in Angola and Namibia against South African forces and supported international sanctions against South Africa until the communist flag - waving Nelson Mandela came (legally) to power, but then he didn't institute a very communist policy though, so it's up to y'all. Invmog (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old 

message: I don't think this is a disambig page  - it's an article. I'll remove the tag soon if there are no objections.--Commander Keane 18:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a disambig 

message: It appears that Proletarian revolution is no different from communist revolution. The concept is nearly identical, and it has no citations - the main difference I can see is that that article has 'socialism' template, and this one 'communism'. Much of the text is shared by both articles both seem to refer to each other interchangingly.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept is not at all identical; a proletarian revolution is any generic working-class revolution. It might be communist, but it might also be anarchist, social democratic, or even liberal. A communist revolution is a specific subtype of proletarian revolution. -- Nikodemos 07:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Nikodemos in part, workers are capable of carrying out all sorts of revolutions, even bourgeois ones. Though when Marxists speak of "proletarian revolution," they mean communist revolution. The main problem I see with merging this two is that not every revolution claiming to be communist was carried out by the working class. It is for this reason that we should leave the entries seperate. Redflagflying 05:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the articles are nearly identical. Second of all, they have no citations. Those two points make it very confusing for any raeder to be able to tell the difference. Third of all, I don't think any non-marxists would use the term 'proletarian revolution', as as you mention, for them it is the same. And anyway, there was to my knowledge never a 'worker's revolution' as defined by the article (i.e. workers trying to overthrow capitlism) - the only worker leds attempt at revolution (or rather, protests), without elites to lead them, occured (to my knowledge) in communist countries (like Polish 1970 protests - ironical, isn't it?).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Proletarian revolution]] 

message: "aims to replace capitalism with communism"
Do communist revolutions only ever seek to replace capitalism?
-Mark- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.113.57.163 (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this wrong? 

message: The following WERE NOT communist revolutions:
1) Cuba. There was not even a communist party during that event. The now known Communist Party of Cuba was founded about five years later.hyy
2) Mozambique 3) Guinea-Bissau (4) Angola (5) Nicaragua (FSLN) (6) El Salvador (FMLN) (7) Vietnam. All of these wars were nationalist wars against military dictatorships (Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador) and others were war of independence (Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, Angola, Vietnam) waged against European colonial powers, mostrly Portugal and France. Nobody can call those revolutions ¨communist,¨ since their main aim was not the establishment of communism. Most of those wars were led by other forces. Those were wars of ¨National Liberation¨ and nothing else, and they were a feature of the times of the struggle against colonialism (Africa and Asia) and military dictatorships (Latin America) Calling ¨communist¨ these wars is plain ignorance.--Reinaldo Contreras (talk) 09:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not communist revolutions! 

message: brazil 1964 and 1935 communist revolutions are lacking  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.105.229.194 (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  brazil 1964 and 1935 are lacking 

message: 1979 Iranian revolution saw the overthrow of the Shah's government with the help of mainly Marxist guerilla groups such as the Fedai who carried on street battles against the Shah's army as well as the marxist-islamic group MKO. In short, although after the revolution, the islamic forces crushed and defeated the leftist groups, it should not be forgotten that the Iranian revolution was successful because of a short lived alliance between leftish groups (tudeh, fedai, mko) and islamic factions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  add 1979 Iranian revolution 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Communist revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927213154/http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/rys7a.html to http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/rys7a.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Needs more content into section "communist revolutions throughout history" and also it is recommended to call this "Communist Rebellions" since not all uprisings against government's are called "revolutions" because some are just about simple interests by people of a certain place. Kommune12 (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innaccuracies 

message: refer to wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12-3_incident, i see that after the incident macau is de facto controlled by PRC which is a political change(despite not through civil war and mostly peaceful), so can this be regraded as communist "revolution", i wonder 42.98.226.81 (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No credible scholar has referred to the 12-3 incident as a communist revolution. The PRC government also does not consider it a communist revolution, particularly because Portuguese colonial rule was de jure maintained in Macau and a Marxist-Leninist vanguard party did not ascend to power in the colony. Yue🌙 17:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  1966 Macau 12-3 incident can also be a kind of (mostly)peaceful communist "revolution"? 

message: Isn't the idea that robots, essentially our slaves, will rise up and defeat us, essentially just communism all over again? If a Robot Revolution ever happened, would that count as one? SilverTheTerribleMathematician (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robot Revolution