Talk:Communism/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 19

Communism vs anarcho-communism vs marxian communism

Much of this article misrepresents communism as solely Marx's version of communism (a variety of anarcho-communism), I've adjusted a few such mistakes, however it is still obvious that many editors have solely defined communism by Marx's particular version of it. Much of the information for instance in the lead is solely relevant to Marx's communism and not communism in general. Darkmagine (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

While it's true that Marx was not the sole person to advocate some sort of communist society, I don't think it's wrong for the article to emphasize Marxist understandings of the term given that the vast majority of references to "communism" in the 20th and 21st centuries have been in relation to Marx and avowedly Marxist movements. Also, outside of anarcho-communists like Kropotkin, I'm not aware of any other variety of communist thought that is still relevant. You don't see anyone proposing we reorder society on the basis of Morelly's Code de la Nature, or that we set up towns and villages on Owenite lines. --Ismail (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It can emphasize, but it still should attempt to include all definitions, if you want to make a lead about marxian communism, then go to a page on marxian communism. This page is about communism in general, and should attempt to describe non-marxian communisms in addition to marxian communism in its lead. Darkmagine (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure common ownership of production applies to all forms of communism. Marxian communism is also the dominant form of communism, meaning Wikipedia's article on communism will reflect that. X-Editor (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The article already has sections titled "Early communism" and "Other types of communism." While I'm sure these could be improved upon, including "all definitions" is unnecessary given how the vast majority of "communisms" are long defunct. I think it's safe to say the bulk of people looking up communism in an encyclopedia don't care to learn how individuals like John Humphrey Noyes and Étienne Cabet used the term. They're far more likely to care about how Marx and ruling parties in the USSR, China, Cuba, etc. have understood the concept. --Ismail (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2022

Under the section; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Memory_and_legacy. The last sentence contains a spelling error:

"Both Gerstle and Scheidel posit that as economic elites in the West became more fearful of possible communist revolutions in their own societies, especially as the tyranny and violence associated with communist governments became more apparent, the more willing they were to compromise and collaborate with the working class, and much less so once the threat wained."

Wained should be waned. This is a common misspelling. Sersteven (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2022

Please edit this page to remove the section making the contrast "a more vanguardist or communist party-driven approach through the development of a constitutional socialist state followed by Friedrich Engels' withering away of the state" as this confuses the reader to believe that the name drop of Engles implies that Leninist Vanguardism is something endorsed by or derived from Engles when this has no basis. This page is often abused as a tool to conflate "in name only" communist countries with the political philosophy of communism. Misnomers exist and should be clearly identified as such. Marx's communism does not prescribe the Marxist Leninist philosophy and strategy of government. Britannica makes this distinction very clearly as an example of better practice . Please add this sentiment in the first paragraph with a clearly written paraphrasing of 'However, none of these (nominal communist countries) meet the true definition of communism... While all five countries (nominal communist countries) have authoritarian governments, their commitment to abolishing capitalism is debatable.' Houseratz (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

When you make an edit request, you should provide the re-wording you want. TFD (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2022

Add the article to Utopias category/series (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia) as a practically unachievable (which was proven historically) model of society. 126.113.237.114 (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Curbon7 (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

That's only one interpretation. Another is that they achieved what they intended. TFD (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

There is an unmet burden of proof for it being practical unachievable. History is itself constantly debated, in question and cannot be a reference of 'proved things'. Ergo this is an unsourced assertion. Please either present credible evidence for a real contradiction implied by the premise of communism or cease your attempts to insert your feelings based ideas into this medium. Houseratz (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

No feelings here, just trying to flesh things out. If practice is not a proof, then such section as "utopia" itself does not make any sense: we can not, prove the impossibility of, say, transhumanism, which does belong to that class, as well. However, further dispute does not make much sense, as seems like I was wrong, and Communist society (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society) is already included into Utopias, so as for me everything is now fine and no amendments required. Thank you for the response. 126.113.237.114 (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to predict what social organization will be in 1.000 years, 1 million years or 100 million years time. Certainly the ancient Greeks could not predict modern capitalism, so it's hard to believe that post-WW2 ideology is necessarily the end of history. TFD (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

What is communism?

An encyclopedia is supposed to inform about that what a word is usually used for. In face of that, it might be rationally relevant that none of the states that were, or periods of time in which they were, referred to as communist states by their leading employees or usually elsewhere, often as the only word to describe the difference between them and the other states in economical policy, came anywhere close either in practical intent or in implementation to “the absence of social classes, money, and the state“, the latter two at least. Because these states or periods of time in the history of states are what the word Communism is used for most, possibly this part of the definition of communism here should be changed to something like “in communist teaching is the ideal of the absence of social classes, money and the state“.

--46.114.149.97 (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

maybe because it's not a possible thing to achieve in reality :^) 2601:18F:E82:97C0:0:0:0:8054 (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't the definition be what the creator of the definition made it, they created the term. You can explain that the term is generally used to mean how the countries that claim to be communism turned out. This also goes for fascism, Wikipedia page for Fascism, including the talk page are both semi-protected so I couldn't type this there. However the way fascism is described in the article has very little to do with the actual meaning of fascism in the fascist manifesto. Is it the same for the Communist article, is the article only describing the description of countries that claim to be communist and offer no information on what it mean in the Communist manifesto? 2603:90C8:503:BE18:A1DD:1767:B72:A10C (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a bad faith, baseless and unconstructive comment. This pages discussion should be limited to educational discourse not empty posturing by the insecure. Houseratz (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The current version of the article already does what you are saying it should. TFD (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It might, but the page for Fascism does not. Why am I mentioning it here? Because the talk page for fascism is locked. Where are we suppose to state things about articles of the talk page is locked? If the Communism article does so, why doesn't the fascism article? 2603:90C8:503:BE18:2DA5:6110:764:DA9B (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Good point..I would debate the whole idea of communism being far left although fascism seems to fit as far right..to me communism is only a word that describes living in a communal way..I guess in the popular sense it does fit as a bunch of people living in a house sharing resources and all that implies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2340:9470:3D3F:2251:46DE:D9FE (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I don`t think it does. What I meant is that the article says "communist society also involves [...]", rather than "communist teaching also says that communist society involves [...]". 129.69.140.138 (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It should be clear at the very beginning of the article that 'Communist states' are misnomers. The role of an encyclopedia should be focused clear education. Corrupt governments have a vested interest in disguising their politics as less offensive through their branding. Wikipedia must undercut this dishonesty and be clear about the facts of the matter. Communism describes X, these countries brand themselves as X but function on the basis of Y. Having an article where cynical branding is lumped with honest philosophy is irresponsible and unethical. Houseratz (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Which is my point, the Communism article mentions the definition as written, and also the definition of how states that used the term acted. But the Fascism article doesn't mention the term in the way it was written. I read the manifesto, it does not fit the wikipedia definition of facisim at all. 2603:90C8:503:BE18:252D:CACC:B4F7:B2C7 (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the author of the original argument posted from 46.114.149.97. I want to say that my point of view is that both the practical and the theoretical meaning of communism should be mentioned, but perhaps the practical meaning (that is also probably relevant to the majority of people, that is probably not communist), including the resulting abuses, first. My primary concern is that in the cause for "the absence of social classes, money, and the state", communism is a roadblock by its authoritativeness about how it embodies and champions such a cause, while it is in practice mainly concerned with locking down culture, public expression, and voting systems in favor of state economy, and then perhaps formal equality of people of different fixed traits like gender and religion, and perhaps some environment protection. How libertarian aspects might be insinuated by the precedence of such a definition, however meant by the original authors of communism, in effect is a neglection of neutrality in favor of its misleading advertising to a libertarian clientele (by libertarians, I mean radical proponents of personal freedom also against the implications of property). I distance myself from what 2603:90C8:503:BE18:2DA5:6110:764:DA9B apparently perhaps meant, that it would also resolve this issue if fascism were given the first word on Wikipedia about what it actually is. 129.69.140.138 (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

According to the Fascism article Fascism is far right, a giant red banner with a hand saying this can not be changed, except the fascist manifesto is no way is similar to far right. Why is there no giant red banner saying Communist if Far left, when the Communist manifesto is far left? Why am I posting this here? Because th4e fascism TALK page is locked.

Things that are in the fascism manifesto corporations can do as they wish, UNLESS they harm the environment OR citizens then we'll restrict them. Nationalism is good - Nationalism doesn't mean the country it means the collective of the citizens. Things like that? So that's what you're saying is far right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:90C8:503:BE18:E18A:9049:BC5C:33EE (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

No criticism of ideology unlike other pages?

Where did it go? Camelfan 42817 (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

See under "Analysis".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is there an out-of-place, one-sentence claim that communist china reduced its poverty rate to 6%

1. Per the world bank, "By 2022, 10.8 percent of the population in China are expected to fall below the $5.50/day per person poverty line."

The only way to get that 6% is to cite blatantly lying state media propaganda.

2. Why is this even in the Post-Soviet Communism section?

It has 2 paragraphs, and one of them is that single sentence proclaiming to the world that 6% is the poverty rate.

I can't edit this page but request that someone who can do two things:

i.) Remove the offending sentence from the end of the Post-Soviet Communism section.

ii.) Report the account that added that sentence. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's process for investigating accounts, but I am sure we have a strong consensus here that state media should not be writing Wikipedia articles, particularly on topics sensitive enough that administrators locked all editing. 76.188.120.7 (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This is sourced to the World Bank. The main researcher was Martin Ravallion, who had a PhD in economics from the London School of Economics. Hardly "blatantly lying state media propaganda". You might check the source before making accusations and calling for an investigation". Now, that number is from 2001 and may need updating. But, the number you quote is what it is expected to be, not measured. This is not a surprise given the effect of the pandemic on China and the extreme lockdowns. Once the dust settles, this can be updated. But, the point of the sentence is that economic reforms did, in fact, dramatically improve the poverty rate, extreme in older days. The next two decades are another discussion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The 6% number is absolutely not found in the World Bank page you mentioned. It's also not asource with "World Bank data, but that is beside the point.

The source does not support the claim. It also is irrelevant to the section. O3000, why are you lying to push the state narrative?

Additionally, imagine if a paragraph were added detailing the increase in poverty under Xi's reign. Such a paragraph would be equally irrelevant to the Post-Soviet Communism section as the unsorted paragraph I proposed deletion of.

I can't edit this page but request that someone who can do two things:

i.) Remove the offending sentence from the end of the Post-Soviet Communism section.

ii.) Report the account that added that sentence. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's process for investigating accounts, but I am sure we have a strong consensus here that state media should not be writing Wikipedia articles, particularly on topics sensitive enough that administrators locked all editing. O3000 also appears to be a sock of the Communist Party.76.188.120.7 (talk) 1 February 2023 (UTC)

[1] O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Uncertain Phrase

A friend of mine and I talked about Wikipedia accuracy on certain topics and he brought up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#:~:text=According%20to%20Rachel%20Walker%2C%20Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism%20is%20an%20empty%20term (According to Rachel Walker, Marxism–Leninism is an empty term that depends on the approach and basis of ruling Communist parties, and is dynamic and open to re-definitions, being both fixed and not fixed in meaning.), saying that this is wrong. I am not very informed on this topic and while I see that the article is citing someone (ie. Rachel Walker), I don't exactly understand why Rachel Walker is being brought up here, especially when, by all I know, Marxism-Leninism isn't an empty term. I personally think this is minor, ie. not article-breaking, but as it was brought up by him as an inaccuracy I'd be interested to understand why this paragraph is as it is. Thanks a lot, ULTRACOMFY (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the view as expressed by that sentence as phrased is worth inclusion in the article. Like all political terms, it is "both fixed and not fixed in meaning" but to say that the term is "empty" is a point of view so WP:exceptional that it should require a higher degree of sourcing. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thank you very much! Normally I'd feel inclined to change the section in question, but when it comes to communism then I know for sure that I'm no qualified to make judgements or act on behalf of the judgement of other people. I'll just leave it to someone who knows what they're talking about. Either way, thank you for your time. ULTRACOMFY (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree this should be deleted.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Political position

WP:NOTAFORUM/WP:OR— provide reliable non-primary sources or forever hold your peace Dronebogus (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Recently, I made an edit describing communism as "far-left", not left wing. Now, I’m saying this with pretty much the entirety of the political spectrum in mind. I can’t see how an idea that encourages not just the elimination of social structures, but also the abolition of private property, religion, and the extermination of a entire structural group - the bourgeoisie - is not considered to be on the farthest left on the spectrum. Also, I’ve found that Wikipedia’s attitude to communism is far too relaxed. For example, Wikipedia says, on the fascism page, Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. Now, I’m not saying this isn’t true, but you can’t go and say all of this and just characterise communism, an ideology that has killed over 100 MILLION people, in addition to its deplorable ideological system of abolition of private enterprise, the bourgeoise, etc. as simply “left wing to far left” and be so ignorant to its authoritarian nature. This site is supposed to be unbiased, but providing a refuge for such a detestable system is just very hard to stomach, especially when I’ve seen editors who have - on this site - openly identified as Marxists, socialists, Maoists, the rest. I think to be unbiased, you MUST abide by the traditional political spectrum. I’m a conservative, no doubt, but I can speak to a liberal. If Wikipedia, however, is to characterise someone like Pres. Trump and his ideology as far right, even fascist (read the Trumpism article) but simply call communism “left-wing”, it shows the site is ridiculously intolerant toward some positions, whilst embracing others (like communism) that are indubitably worse. The Hammering Hammer (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Communism has many flavors, which the article discusses. Indeed, China, Russia, and Cuba have private enterprise. All systems have problems. No purist system seems to work at a large scale. The US is a capitalist/socialist country as pure capitalism could be described as immoral. But, we aren’t here to decide what is a good vs. bad system. To remain unbiased, we cannot make statements like communism requires an authoritarian nature as, unlike fascism, it doesn’t. Although current, large examples are authoritarian. We must cover the entire subject in an unbiased manner, which we do. As for the 100 million deaths, you might want to read the section on “Excess mortality in Communist states”. Over the centuries, there has been no shortage of deaths at the hands of humans. As an example, it is estimated that 90% of the indigenous populations in the Americas died. As for your statement: the site is ridiculously intolerant toward some positions, whilst embracing others (like communism), that is way, way out of line and should be stricken. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Actually, I have read that section. It seems like it’s been manipulated to achieve very much an agenda. Just read this, Many authors have written about excess deaths under Communist states and mortality rates, such as excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. Some authors posit that there is a Communist death toll, whose death estimates vary widely, depending on the definitions of the deaths that are included in them, ranging from lows of 10–20 million to highs over 100 million. The higher estimates have been criticized by several scholars as ideologically motivated and inflated; they are also criticized for being inaccurate due to incomplete data, inflated by counting any excess death, making an unwarranted link to communism, and the grouping and body-counting itself. Wikipedia doesn’t provide a source here. It’s like saying, "There is no consensus the Great Depression happened because not every one lived during that time". Wikipedia doesn’t provide a source, plain and simple. I’m not questioning any thing about fascism. And I didn’t say anything about the indigenous people. Basically, Wikipedia’s entire section is saying, We’re not sure if these things happened. "Unwarranted link to communism." Saying that is just mad. It’s actually quite disgusting. The consensus of several scholars doesn’t change anything about these atrocities, and the fact that Wikipedia is even casting doubt on the horrific stories of communist regimes is beyond wrong. As for arguing with my describing it as authoritarian, perhaps you’d like to view the fact Marx describes the bourgeoisie as the responsibility behind despicable natures in society, and as such puts forward their demise as their answer. Marx writes this - there’s no disputing this. Oh, yes, and read this Marx work: "I shall build my throne high overhead, cold, tremendous shall its summit be…Then I will be able to walk triumphantly, like a god, through the ruins of their kingdom. Every word of mine is fire and action. My breast is equal to that of the creator… I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above." The Hammering Hammer (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC) The section I referred to links to an article on deaths under Stalin with 97 refs and there are many more in that paragraph. You have grossly mischaracterized the section. As for Marx, as I said, there are many flavors of communism. Echoing one quote from Marx as if it defines all communist variants is pointless. Did I quote Hitler, who despised communism? Your comparison to the great depression is not on point. I feel this is not going to be a useful discussion as you appear to want to turn this into a screed instead of an unbiased article on a complex subject. "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." -John Kenneth Galbraith O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Those quotes are taken from different works. The first is from a book of poetry he wrote at 19 before he became interested in ideology. It's easy to cherry pick quotes from a prolific writer whose views evolved over time. Why not quote his essay written two years earlier, "The Union of the Faithful with Christ?" Then one could speculate that the Communists were secretly Christian. TFD (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC) I agree that communism should be described as far-left in the introduction, instead of being labeled as simply "left-wing to far-left". This is because communism is a political ideology that requires a radical and complete overhaul to the current economic and social structures of society and in most parts of the world it is very far of the overton window. Even the few last remaining relevant communist parties like CCP and JCP have, in pratice, moved away from the literal interpretation of communism that was present in their original ideologies. Lucasdmca (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Regarding the left-right axis question: there are no universal standards for left-right positions. Depending on where you stand, things might seem further to the left or further to the right. Characterizing communism as 'far-left' is misleading, as communist parties constitute the mainstream left in many countries and in some countries is the sole legal party (making left/right labels for parties superflous). --Soman (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC) I would like that you provide examples of countries where parties defending literal communism is the mainstream left. As far as I know, there are only two countries praticing anything that remotely resembles communism, NK and Cuba. Today most communist one-party states like China and Vietnam are communist in name only. Lucasdmca (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC) No country ever practiced "literal communism," which is a society where the state has ceased to exist. While they share a belief that is the ultimate destiny of mankind, in practice communists select their policies according to conditions. In China for example the government determined that allowing private enterprise would lead to greater wealth for their people. Earlier, they defended a planned economy on the basis that it would bring about rapid industrialization. What distinguishes them is the ideological reasons for their policies. TFD (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Lucasdmca - I'd say France, India, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Iraq, Russia, Brazil, Chile, etc. are some contemporary examples. If we can include past periods, Italy is a clear-cut example as well. --Soman (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Cambodia was certainly communist, as was Cuba (under Castro). The Hammering Hammer (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC) They were not communist, because the state had not withered away, which is the definition of communism. They called their states socialist, although whether or not they actually were is contentious. The most you can say is that they were ruled by communist parties. But communist parties can pursue a range of policies, just as liberal and conservative parties can. TFD (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Cuba is not a good example of anything other than survival. Since tossing out Batista's police state, Cuba has been under punishing economic sanctions making any system challenging. As TFD said, no country ever practiced "literal communism". Perhaps there was some semblance in small examples like some early Native American or other aboriginal groups. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Cambodia, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Cuba, China, Soviet Union — all of them were indubitably communist. You can’t just say "it’s contentious whether or not they were socialist", they were all communist they were just preparing for a stateless society. Pot achieved a society that neared stateless nature. You judge communism by the people that described themselves as communists. If someone is a Christian, but say "real Christianity" has never been tried, you’d laugh in their face, as billions of people are Christians…just abiding by the GOAL of communism (which, ultimately, is for the entire world to become a communist state, unlike what you have said), does not change these countries were communist…it is unarguable that they were communist countries, as they went by a communist image. Stop trying to make it out like the far-left has never been responsible for something truly disgusting, e.g. the Khmer Rouge…it was communist, and to say anything else is ridiculous. The Hammering Hammer (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC) There is a distinction between the ideology of the government and the type of economic system it has. The government of Scotland for example supports independence but nonetheless Scotland is not an independant state. Anyway, to say that a state is preparing to become communist is not the same thing as saying it has achieved that. How can you say that Pol Pot's plans for achieving communism were right and modern China's isn't? In fact none of them have achieved communism so we cannot know which would work best. And yes the description of socialist is contentious because it is questionable whether the working class actually controlled the state or whether it was controlled by party elites. Some writers for example say it was failed socialism because worker democracies were never achieved, while others say that was never the intention. Only you and the Communists themselves believed that they had achieved socialism. TFD (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC) I think that some of this discussion shows confusion between communism, which is a more general category, and Marxism–Leninism, which is the actual specific ideology of the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and so on. Marxism-Leninism was historically the most prominent type of communism, so it often gets called simply "communism", but that's like how we usually refer to Conservatism in the United States as just "conservatism", although conservatism is actually a much broader category. So, Wikipedia has two different pages for them, one for the broad category and one for the more specific ideology, even though they are usually called by the same name. That's how it is with communism (broad) and Marxism-Leninism (specific), too. The Hammering Hammer, you should check out the articles on other forms of communism, like anarcho-communism and eurocommunism for example, and you will see that they are very different from Marxism-Leninism (and from each other). Eurocommunism is not usually considered far-left, and some of its leaders were even instrumental in creating the European Union. Anarcho-communism is far-left obviously, but not in the same way as Marxism-Leninism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liv Karbt (talk • contribs) 06:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Communist parties have been part of governing coalitions in many democratic countries, such as in France in the Plural Left government of 1997-2002. We cannot say that these moderate communists were "not real communists" just like we can't say that Mao was "not a real communist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liv Karbt (talk • contribs) 06:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

András Bozóki

So I saw the Bozoki para was removed. I didn't remove it myself because whether it should be included depends on two questions:

1) Is his (rather confused and likely incorrect) opinion regarding the history of communism WP:DUE 2) If it is WP:DUE was the statement accredited to him accurately recorded or was it garbled? Let's discuss.

I'll note I'm not particularly familiar with Bozoki. I'm not impressed with what I see here but my level of impression isn't a criterion for inclusion or exclusion on Wikipedia (alas). Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed it because the very long-winded and jumbled paragraph contradicted itself, and tried to create very blanket statements. For example, it said that a bonus of communism was greater rights for women but a negative was "less freedom", as if to imply women having equal rights isn't freedom. It also said that communist movements created xenophobia, which is extremely bizarre when you consider that most communist parties were a century ahead of most other movements when it came to race relations.

Perhaps the paragraph cited an article which only focused on a specific country but this wasn't mentioned in the text. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Definition of Communism

Because of widespread usual primary use and relevance of this word, I think that Communism should rather be primarily defined as a mode of government that is justified with an ideology wherein the state would ultimately wither away, rather than primarily as the apparently practically irrelevant ideal of that ideology. 2A02:3038:413:E801:1:0:4F77:A487 (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Right this way: WP:PROOF. –Vipz (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

"Cummunism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Cummunism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 15 § Cummunism until a consensus is reached. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

what 2.30.180.204 (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

i’m as confused as you are anonymous user ~eticangaaa (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Some flaws in "analysis" section

I think there is quite a lack of balance surrounding opinions in this section, with approximately two thirds of loaded (i.e., opinions) statements somewhat defensive of communism, and the remaining third critical. (about 70% and 30% respectively). Here's my breakdown of most of the section. I shall use blue as those defensive of communism / critical of anti-communism, and red for those critical of communism.

• Anti-communism developed as soon as communism became a conscious political movement in the 19th century, and anti-communist mass killings have been reported against alleged communists, or their alleged supporters, which were committed by anti-communists and political organizations or governments opposed to communism. The communist movement has faced opposition since it was founded and the opposition to it has often been organized and violent. Many of these anti-communist mass killing campaigns, primarily during the Cold War,[270][271] were supported by the United States and its Western Bloc allies,[272][273] including those who were formally part of the Non-Aligned Movement, such as the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 and Operation Condor in South America.[274][275]

• The higher estimates have been criticized by several scholars as ideologically motivated and inflated; they are also criticized for being inaccurate due to incomplete data, inflated by counting any excess death, making an unwarranted link to communism, and the grouping and body-counting itself.

• Higher estimates are criticized for being based on sparse and incomplete data when significant errors are inevitable, skewed to higher possible values, and that victims of civil wars, the Holodomor and other famines, and war-related events should not be included.

• These scholars state that most Communist states did not engage in mass killings

• Opponents of this view argue that these killings were aberrations caused by specific authoritarian regimes, and not caused by communism itself, and point to mass deaths in wars and famines that they argue were caused by colonialism, capitalism, and anti-communism as a counterpoint to those killings.[303][304] According to Dovid Katz and other historians, a historical revisionist view of the double genocide theory,[305][306] equating mass deaths under Communist states with the Holocaust, is popular in Eastern European countries and the Baltic states, and their approaches of history have been incorporated in the European Union agenda,[307] among them the Prague Declaration in June 2008 and the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism, which was proclaimed by the European Parliament in August 2008 and endorsed by the OSCE in Europe in July 2009. Among many scholars in Western Europe, the comparison of the two regimes and equivalence of their crimes has been, and still is, widely rejected

• Defenders of communism on the political left say that the deaths were caused by specific authoritarian regimes and not communism as an ideology, while also pointing to anti-communist mass killings and deaths in wars that they argue were caused by capitalism and anti-communism as a counterpoint to the deaths under Communist states.[271][48][301]

• The "victims of Communism" concept,[311] has become accepted scholarship, as part of the double genocide theory, in Eastern Europe and among anti-communists in general;[312] it is rejected by some Western European[307] and other scholars, especially when it is used to equate Communism and Nazism, which is seen by scholars as a long-discredited perspective.[313] The narrative posits that famines and mass deaths by Communist states can be attributed to a single cause and that communism, as "the deadliest ideology in history", or in the words of Jonathan Rauch as "the deadliest fantasy in human history",[314] represents the greatest threat to humanity.[301] Proponents posit an alleged link between communism, left-wing politics, and socialism with genocide, mass killing, and totalitarianism,[315] with some authors, such as George Watson, advocating a common history stretching from Marx to Adolf Hitler.[298] Some right-wing authors allege that Marx was responsible for Nazism and the Holocaust.[316]

• Most experts agree there was a significant increase in mortality rates following the years 1989 and 1991, including a 2014 World Health Organization report which concluded that the "health of people in the former Soviet countries deteriorated dramatically after the collapse of the Soviet Union."[324] Post-Communist Russia during the IMF-backed economic reforms of Boris Yeltsin experienced surging economic inequality and poverty as unemployment reached double digits by the early to mid 1990s.[325][326] By contrast, the Central European states of the former Eastern Bloc–Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia–showed healthy increases in life expectancy from the 1990s onward, compared to nearly thirty years of stagnation under Communism.[327] Bulgaria and Romania followed this trend after the introduction of more serious economic reforms in the late 1990s.[328][329] The economies of Eastern Bloc countries had previously experienced stagnation in the 1980s under Communism.[330] A common expression throughout Eastern Europe after 1989 was "everything they told us about communism was a lie, but everything they told us about capitalism was true."[324]: 192

• The average post-Communist country had returned to 1989 levels of per-capita GDP by 2005.[332] However, Branko Milanović wrote in 2015 that following the end of the Cold War, many of those countries' economies declined to such an extent during the transition to capitalism that they have yet to return to the point they were prior to the collapse of communism.[333] Several scholars state that the negative economic developments in post-Communist countries after the fall of Communism led to increased nationalist sentiment and nostalgia for the Communist era.[48][334][335] In 2011, The Guardian published an analysis of the former Soviet countries twenty years after the fall of the USSR. They found that "GDP fell as much as 50 percent in the 1990s in some republics... as capital flight, industrial collapse, hyperinflation and tax avoidance took their toll", but that there was a rebound in the 2000s, and by 2010 "some economies were five times as big as they were in 1991." Life expectancy has grown since 1991 in some of the countries, but fallen in others; likewise, some held free and fair elections, while others remained authoritarian.[336] By 2019, the majority of people in most Eastern European countries approved of the shift to multiparty democracy and a market economy, with approval being highest among residents of Poland and residents in the territory of what was once East Germany, and disapproval being the highest among residents of Russia and Ukraine. In addition, 61 percent said that standards of living were now higher than they had been under Communism, while only 31 percent said that they were worse, with the remaining 8 percent saying that they did not know or that standards of living had not changed.[337]

• Political theorist and professor Jodi Dean argues that this limits the scope of discussion around political alternatives to capitalism and neoliberalism. Dean argues that, when people think of capitalism, they do not consider what are its worst results (climate change, economic inequality, hyperinflation, the Great Depression, the Great Recession, the robber barons, and unemployment) because the history of capitalism is viewed as dynamic and nuanced; the history of communism is not considered dynamic or nuanced, and there is a fixed historical narrative of communism that emphasizes authoritarianism, the gulag, starvation, and violence.[339][340] Ghodsee,[i] along with the historians Gary Gerstle and Walter Scheidel, suggest that the rise and fall of communism had a significant impact on the development and decline of labor movements and social welfare states in the United States and other Western societies. Gerstle argues that organized labor in the United States was strongest when the threat of communism reached its peak, and the decline of both organized labor and the welfare state coincided with the collapse of communism. Both Gerstle and Scheidel posit that as economic elites in the West became more fearful of possible communist revolutions in their own societies, especially as the tyranny and violence associated with communist governments became more apparent, the more willing they were to compromise with the working class, and much less so once the threat waned.[341][342]

Total: 1240 words

• The right-libertarian think tank Cato Institute has stated that the analyses done of post-communist countries in the 1990s were "premature" and "that early and rapid reformers by far outperformed gradual reformers" on GDP per capita, the United Nations Human Development Index and political freedom, in addition to developing better institutions. The institute also stated that the process of privatization in Russia was "deeply flawed" due to Russia's reforms being "far less rapid" than those of Central Europe and the Baltic states.[331]

• In contrast, Austrian-American economist Ludwig von Mises argued that by abolishing free markets, communist officials would not have the price system necessary to guide their planned production.[269]

• Many authors have written about excess deaths under Communist states and mortality rates,[note 5] such as excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin.[note 6] Some authors posit that there is a Communist death toll, whose death estimates vary widely, depending on the definitions of the deaths that are included in them, ranging from lows of 10–20 million to highs over 100 million.

• Others have argued that, while certain estimates may not be accurate, "quibbling about numbers is unseemly. What matters is that many, many people were killed by communist regimes."[48]

• Benjamin Valentino proposes the category of Communist mass killing, alongside colonial, counter-guerrilla, and ethnic mass killing, as a subtype of dispossessive mass killing to distinguish it from coercive mass killing

• Some authors, such as John Gray,[294] Daniel Goldhagen,[295] and Richard Pipes,[296] consider the ideology of communism to be a significant causative factor in mass killings. Some connect killings in Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao Zedong's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia on the basis that Stalin influenced Mao, who influenced Pol Pot; in all cases, scholars say killings were carried out as part of a policy of an unbalanced modernization process of rapid industrialization.[56][note 12]

• Some authors and politicians, such as George G. Watson, allege that genocide was dictated in otherwise forgotten works of Karl Marx.[298][299] Many commentators on the political right point to the mass deaths under Communist states, claiming them as an indictment of communism.[300][301][302]

• Critics of communism on the political right point to the excess deaths under Communist states as an indictment of communism as an ideology.[300][301][302]

• Some authors, as Stéphane Courtois, propose a theory of equivalence between class and racial genocide.[317] It is supported by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, with 100 million being the most common estimate used from The Black Book of Communism despite some of the authors of the book distancing themselves from the estimates made by Stephen Courtois.[48] Various museums and monuments have been constructed in remembrance of the victims of Communism, with support of the European Union and various governments in Canada, Eastern Europe, and the United States.[66][67] Works such as The Black Book of Communism and Bloodlands legitimized debates on the comparison of Nazism and Stalinism,[317][318] and by extension communism, and the former work in particular was important in the criminalization of communism.[66][67] According to Freedom House, Communism is "considered one of the two great totalitarian movements of the 20th century", the other being Nazism, but added that "there is an important difference in how the world has treated these two execrable phenomena.":[319]

• The failure of Communist governments to live up to the ideal of a communist society, their general trend towards increasing authoritarianism, their bureaucracy, and the inherent inefficiencies in their economies have been linked to the decline of communism in the late 20th century.[1][44][45] Walter Scheidel stated that despite wide-reaching government actions, Communist states failed to achieve long-term economic, social, and political success.[320] The experience of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the North Korean famine, and alleged economic underperformance when compared to developed free market systems are cited as examples of Communist states failing to build a successful state while relying entirely on what they view as orthodox Marxism.[321][322][page needed]

• Conservatives, liberals, and social democrats generally view 20th-century Communist states as unqualified failures.

Total: 658 words

My rationale for these highlights: language emphasising the violence of anti-communism, the notion that some right-wingers describe Marx as responsible for the Holocaust, emphasis on rejection of the "100 million" made-up statistic - or rejection of the "Victims of Communism" concept -, and on the notion that state-sanctioned violence under "socialist" states were aberrations - these are all clearly defensive to varying degrees, either in defence of communism or criticism of the opposition to communism (colored in red). I have nothing wrong with the majority of the cited material here. Please note that these highlightings are entirely my own opinion; please write if you disagree my assessment of imbalance.

So, by sheer A) word count, it certainly does appear significantly tilted to one side. But that skew is not necessarily bad in itself, only that it would require the academic and reliable-source consensus to be so skewed. But is that the case? I am not sure, but let's look at two more things: firstly, B) structure, and I will conclude not by merely saying that this article is unfixable, nor a great wrong (as many conspiratorial IP editors have done for years), but by writing C) other topics which are vastly sourced in relation to the topic of the analysis and reception of communism, and are more relevant than some of the arguments present - both on the critical and defensive sides.

STRUCTURE

• Reception
  • For the reception section, there is Paczkowski's statement about how hopeful communism seemed to many, followed by Mises' clear rejection of communism due to lack of price signals.
  • Then, an entire paragraph - which fills half of the "reception" section - focuses on anti-communism. The entirety of this paragraph focuses not on anti-communist intellectuals or critical opinion, but solely of organised, violent repression, such as mass killings during the Cold War.
    • From this section as "reception", it 1) summarises virtually nothing about how communists, socialists, and various other sympathetic groups have received communism itself. That should indeed be commented on briefly, both a small summary of how a) some view the regimes in history as aberrations, b) some moved to the right (an example would perhaps be the Social Democratic Party of Germany, and c) some view the regimes as a success to some degree, as Ther writes later. 2) It describes anti-communism only in relation to organised mass killings and violence; that absolutely must be mentioned, but to shorten "anti-communism" under the reception section to solely that is clearly misguided; there is a vast amount of anti-communist material that can be sourced - I have linked some under "other topics".

• Excess mortality in Communist states
  • The first paragraph describes the "death toll", from lows of about 20 million, to highs of approx. 100 million. The following sentence criticises the higher estimates, methodology, and the "unwarranted" links with communism. This is excessive focus on the "100 million" figure, which is a figure supported by very few historians, including anti-communists - incl. Courtois' co-authors, like Werth and Margolin. The counter-critique to the mention of the death toll is not to acknowledge that tens of millions died under "socialist" regimes, but solely to criticise the upper estimates. While I absolutely agree that the fact that some historians like Courtois have had agendas and dubious estimates against communism, this does not need to be mentioned as a sort-of rebuttal per se to the very fact that millions died. The very fact is that millions died, and indeed Ghodsee and Sehon's quote acknowledges this.
  • Furthermore, the critique of those pointing out excess mortality says this: the suggestion that "victims of civil wars, the Holodomor and other famines, and war-related events should not be included". That is outright obnoxious; the subject is "excess mortality" - and then it is suggested that famines, wars, etc. shouldn't be included? They perhaps wouldn't be relevant for a section on "mass killing", but this is completely different; there was historically undeniable high excess mortality during periods throughout e.g., the USSR and China's histories, the vast vast majority of such excess mortality being directly related to war and famine. That is undeniable, and thus an argument is incorrectly inferred from these sources to "not include" them. Someone probably this copy-pasted from the Mass killings article, which is a different topic than "excess mortality".
  • In my opnion, the next paragraph is mostly fine, describing notions of "genocide", "classicide", and related terms, with opnions from both "most Communist states did not engage in mass killings" and Gray et. al's opinion that communist ideology played a role.
  • The next paragraph is completely unbalanced. The opinion, "Many commentators on the political right point to the mass deaths under Communist states, claiming them as an indictment of communism" is presented, (of 21 words), followed by a 158-word outright rejection of this notion, including: what is frankly whataboutism† of mass killings under capitalist regimes (a completely different topic that may be only tangentially relevant): Katz's rejection of the "double genocide theory" as a response seems like a strawman† , as this is the only opinion presented regarding comparisons with Nazism (some academics and historians, for instance compare Stalinism and Nazism, some don't - the former isn't mentioned). The section closes with the notion that comparisons are widely rejected in Western Europe. Regarding structure, this is a particularly egregious example of an anti-communist opinion that supports an "indictment" of communism being met by entirely tangential whataboutist and strawman responses; such opinions in that 158-word rejection are not inherently bad, only that they must be in response to something - there are no opinions of academics such as Snyder, Nolte, Brzezinski (and more which I will get to) are presented that do compare Communist regimes and Nazism. Furthermore, there is Katz's mention of the "double genocide theory" associated with the support of far-right conspiracy theorists, such as in the Baltics. Therefore, anti-communist opinions are ignored from academics, and mentions of them are supposedly relevant when considering far-right extremists; this paragraph clearly reads like a dismissal of anti-communism in its entirety as un-academic or extremist in some way.

• Mermory and legacy
  • The first paragraph commits to the same structure: at first, a critical (of communism) opinion of 23 words, describing the aforementioned "indictment" of communism as an ideology, followed by a 52-word defensive rebuttal that describes excess deaths as due not to communism, with the repeated notion of deaths under capitalism as a "counterpoint". Because both the critical and defensive rebuttals are entirely repeated here from the last two paragraphs of Excess mortality in Communist states, I suggest removing this paragraph from "Critics of communism on the political right..." onwards.
  • I am mostly fine with the second paragraph; it clearly presents the defensive (of communist) view as "Victims of Communism" often relating to the "double genocide theory", rejecting comparisons of Nazism and Communism. I support this relevant mention, although this statement onwards describes a clearly widespread view among anti-communists, "Proponents posit an alleged link between communism, left-wing politics, and socialism with genocide, mass killing, and totalitarianism", followed by a clearly fringe view, "Some right-wing authors allege that Marx was responsible for Nazism and the Holocaust" - Again, this suggests a degree of absurdity in anti-communist arguments, by employing the motte-and-bailey fallacy to say that "some anti-communists even believe X!"; we should be focused on what anti-communists generally believe.
  • The next paragraph presents the critical (of communism) view, with various mentions of the criminalization of communism in the public sphere to give a degree of balance. I support this paragraph, and the next one, which describes both the communist's supposed failure to live up to their proposed society, while also mentioning Ther's acknowledgement that live had in some ways improved.
  • The next two paragraphs - 501 words - describe the quality of life dropping after communist regimes had fell in the 1990s. I think that this material should be merged into one paragraph. Should the "legacy" of communism be focused on how bad the aftermath of it was? I think that 1990s capitalist tyranny which caused potentially millions of excess deaths should be mentioned, but "legacy" certainly also the legacy of history long before the 1990s, such as the legacy of Stalin, or indeed outside Europe, such as Mao, who isn't even mentioned at all in this section.
  • The final paragraph definitely is unbalanced. A 13-word quotation "...as unqualified failures" is presented, followed by a 225-word section from the other side, firstly by Dean, then by Ghodsee, Scheidel, et. al. The description of "failure of communist regimes" as "unqualified" to be met by a 20x-larger critique that starts by saying "this limits the scope of discussion around political alternatives to capitalism and neoliberalism" is clearly very unbalanced. I agree with the mention of these 225 words, but it seriously feels like only one side is being presented. I have some suggestions below for further quotes to be used.

C) OTHER TOPICS

So, here are topics I think are relevant to add, regarding reception and analysis, and many of these I think are much more relevant than arguments I mentioned under (C). Many of these are already sourced and mentioned in articles such as Mass killings under communist regimes (an article which I think shouldn't exist as SYNTH, only with some of its contents included in this article), and Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism.

• For Excess morality in Communist states:
  • In 1993, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter, wrote that "the failed effort to build communism in the twentieth century consumed the lives of almost 60,000,000."
  • In 2005, professor Benjamin Valentino stated that the number of non-combatants killed by communist regimes in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia alone ranged from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million.
  • Political scientist Rudolph Rummel and historian Mark Bradley have written that, while the exact numbers have been in dispute, the order of magnitude is not.
  • According to historian Klas-Göran Karlsson, discussions of the number of victims of communist regimes have been "extremely extensive and ideologically biased." - this quotation seems relevant for the first paragraph, instead of the unquoted source that begins "The higher estimates have been criticized by several scholars..."
  • Daniel Goldhagen argues that 20th century communist regimes "have killed more people than any other regime type." - This could be a relevant quote, as this section merely mentions Goldhagen, Pipes et. al, without providing any of their quotations.
  • Benjamin Valentino writes: "Although not all the deaths due to famine in these cases were intentional, communist leaders directed the worst effects of famine against their suspected enemies and used hunger as a weapon to force millions of people to conform to the directives of the state." - this could be a good quotation for the first paragraph, as it addresses the slight ambiguity surrounding famines; famines were not necessarily unintentional.

• For Memory and legacy:
  • The European Parliament has designated August 23 as the Black Ribbon Day, a Europe-wide day of remembrance for victims of the 20th-century totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.
  • Mention of legacy outside Europe and former-USSR
  • Mention of the totalitarian model (debate) and its critics

• Other general potential areas:
  • The effects of collectivization in Communist states
  • Comparisons with anti-communist mass killings
  • Examples of communist terrorism (so long as they are adequately sourced in relation to "reception", "excess mortality" or "memory and legacy")
  • Anarchist opposition to communism (under "reception" section)
  • Anti-communist former communists, e.g., writers of The God that Failed, and Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism
  • The rise of inequality in post-communist states

• Potentially relevant links:
  • "Communist Legacies and Left Authoritarianism" - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0010414019879954
  • "Historical Legacy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Inequality" - Evidence from Post-Communist Regionshttps://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/201912/3/Libman_Obydenkova_Inequality.pdf
  • "The Collectivization of Agriculture in Communist Eastern Europe: Comparison and Entanglements" - https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7829/j.ctt6wpkqw

What I have done:

• Changed what is a clear error:
  • Removed "Higher estimates are criticized for being based on sparse and incomplete data when significant errors are inevitable, skewed to higher possible values, and that victims of civil wars, the Holodomor and other famines, and war-related events should not be included."
• Added just two quotations:
  • Daniel Goldhagen argues that 20th century communist regimes "have killed more people than any other regime type." to the second paragraph of "Excess mortality"
  • Political scientist Rudolph Rummel and historian Mark Bradley have written that, while the exact numbers have been in dispute, the order of magnitude is not. - to the end of the first paragraph of "Excess mortality".

I hope some of my further criticisms above will be taken account into further proposed changes, as I think that this section of the article is very tedious, like any "reception" and "legacy" section.

Zilch-nada (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Balabce doesn't mean that we provide equivalence to pro and anti-communist positions, but that we provide weight appropriate to the literature. There are actually three positions here, in order to weight in reliable sources: mainstream, communist and anti-communist. They could be described respectively as majority, minority and fringe.

Articles for example do not give equal weight to opinions expressed in the Washington Times and in the Washington Post. TFD (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

"could be described respectively as majority, minority and fringe"; one could say that, but like I said, I don't know if it's the case that there is such a scew. The impetus of my post was that I have seen eschewed historical context and sources, such as "reception" consisting almost entirely of the brutality of anti-communism. That's why I have added additional sources, but I still think much more needs changed. Zilch-nada (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

In order to determine the weight of the material in the article, you need to look at books about communism. The article is already skewed toward a fringe perspective that makes it read like something written in the 50s. Mises and Goldhagen for example are not experts on communism so there's no reason to provide their opinions.

Richard Pipes was an expert of sorts, but much of his interpretation turned out to be false. The Soviet Union for example was not leading the arms race and was not a threat to th U.S. in the 1980s. TFD (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Likewise, Katz, Sehon and Dean are scholars in tangentially related fields. Why are you only pointing out one side of the story? Zilch-nada (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

"was not a threat to the US" is quite subjective, especially given that the USSR was engaged in imperialist warfare in Afghanistan; detente wasn't so clear at all. Zilch-nada (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand how Soviet warfare in Afghanistan was a threat to the U.S., considering that if Kabul is 7,000 miles away from Washington. A lot of dominoes would have to fall before it became a problem with Georgetown homeowners.

Pipes falsely claimed that the Soviets had submarines so sophisticated that the U.S. could not detect them. He knew they were sophisticated because the U.S. could not detect them. Of course, this was irrational circular paranoid reasoning. Why should opinions of people who made claims that had no credibility even when they were made be given any weight?

I agree that the experts used on mass killings under Communist regimes have little relevance to the topic. But mass killings has little relevance to the topic, based on the literature about communism. It's more a reflection of what some editors consider important. Notice for example that the article on Nazism spends far less space on their genocide and responsibility for WWII. TFD (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the skew in the "Reception" sections, we have a significant issue in the lack of a WP:Global perspective in this area. It is a failure of due weight that we do not yet have perspectives of Chinese Marxists (consider that the CPC is one of the largest political parties in the world, and China's is the longest tenured socialist government in history). I understand of course editors' language limitations but we are quite parochial at the moment. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I did mention the potential inclusion of Mao in the "legacy" section. But you strangely insist on Chinese Marxists, not academic commentary on China in general. Why? Zilch-nada (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Odd response. It reads as though you think it is a "Gotcha!" of some sort. First, I haven't "insisted" on anything. Second, I already explained my rationale in the parenthetical already. To phrase it another way, we are missing a major school of analysis on the subject. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

We're not just missing a "major school" covering China, but any coverage of China whatsoever. Seriously note WP:NPOV, regarding not only any inclusion of China but the insistence on a specific "major school". We need to find sources covering China first, regarding "analysis" of communism. Zilch-nada (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

But first you have to establish the weight of coverage it receives in reliable sources about communism. TFD (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but JArthur has seemingly decided already, without considering weight. Zilch-nada (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The weight of different aspects must be determined by coverage in the literature. For example, what degree of coverage would a standard textbook on communism give to China or to mass killing or to socialist realism art? Before complaining about balance in the article, you need to establish this. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and for more information. An American who sleeps with his guns in his bomb shelter at night will have a different perspective than an unemployed villager in a third world country about to be hired by the Belt and Road initiative. TFD (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Millions died, yes, but that doesn't in any way undermine or invalidate communism as a viable, even necessary economic and sociopolitical system (Let's hear your solution for advanced automation and artificial intelligence, replacing wage-labor, without socialism or communism..Good luck!).

Class warfare is bloody (The powers that be, don't peacefully relinquish their power), and let me remind you that capitalism has its own mountain of dead rotting corpses under its stinky feet, so all of you capitalist-apologists should find another line of criticism, because you have no moral high ground upon which to stand and point fingers, with your death-toll arguments. Spare us all your crocodile tears. John Bilbao (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

References