Talk:Communism/Archive 10

Eurocommunism

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)

Broken External Link

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).

Laws

Is it legal to be a comunist or memeber of a comunist organization in the US? What are the laws concerning comunism?

There are no laws concerning being a communist in the United States, as far as I know (well...not anymore...). --Yossarian 21:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically, political affiliation is (should be) protected by the First Amendment. Seeing as there are active political parties in the USA that support communism (i.e. the Communist Party USA) and are able to opperate freely, this is more or less true today. In the past, however, people associating themselves with communism have been prosecuted in the United States in the past (see Red Scare) and there remains a strong bias against communism in the public image. You might want too look into [in the United States], although that deals more with foreign policy toward Communist nations. (Long story short, there are no laws against communism in the USA - at least not directly.) Crito2161 18:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Smith Act did make it a felony to be associated with a group that "advocates the violent overthrow of the United States", and was often pointed at the Communist Party. But it's been pretty much gutted since 1957. Pat Payne 17:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

They do still ask immigrants if they have had associations with Communist Parties etc, and I am not an immigrant, but I think they do deny visas on such grounds. LordBrain 04:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Both the United States and Canada deny immigrant applications to communists. On the application it asks, do you subscribe to the viewpoint overthrowing government with the use of force? or affliated with such groups.--CmrdMariategui 17:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly, in my opinion Marxism states that historically it is only a matter of time before the world becomes communist which in my belief is true, workers have fairer wages, better working conditions, pension plans, Medicare in Canada, Gradually the world is becoming more and more socialist in nature. Not all communists believe in the forceful overthrow of the government.--ErnestownMarxist , 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation

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)

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)

Comments on the article

Stalinism, etc: I object to the subdivision of 'Modern communism' into subdivisions of 'Stalinism', 'Trotskyism' and 'Maoism'. It gives the false impression that there was an original modern communist movement was disintegrated and trifurcated. Rather there is a historical continuity in the world communist movement, from Comintern til today. There have been various divisions, and dissident tendencies (left communists, brandlerites, trotskyists, titoists, maoists, eurocommunists, etc.) have at times established separate parties and international tendencies. But the world communist movement has remained as a political entity.

What becomes odd with the stalinism, trotskyism and maoism trifurcation is that it appeares that a separate 'Stalinist' tendency emerged in the WCM. One could argue that the communist movement was divided in 'Stalinist' and 'Trotskyist' factions in the 1920s, in the sense that one section was led by Stalin and another by Trotsky. But what is the usefulness of using the term 'Stalinist' to describe the mainstream of the world communist movement in the post-Stalin era? The great majority of the communist movement renounced Stalin from 1956, and those who upheld Stalin became a dissident tendency that separated itself from the mainstream of the communist movement (i.e. the anti-revisionists). --Soman 08:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

With reference to paragraph one I can't follow the logic here, no doubt some intellectual failing on my part. The three sub-divsions mentioned all seem to me clear modifications of the original 'model', all different in both substance and style. In what way, I have to ask, has the world communist movement (is there such a thing today?) 'remained as a political entity.' Does this mean that it exists in some ideal or Platonic sense? And where does it exist? Is there no difference between, say, the forms of 'Communism' practiced in China, Cuba and North Korea? It would seem obvious that Communism since 1917, as it is practiced, has been modified and conditioned by separate national and historical conditions. It simply makes no sense to say that the world communist movement exists in any coherent or unified sense, either in organisational or political terms.

Stalinism, I would suggest, represents a particular form of political practice, depending on a high degree of centralisation and bureaucratic control. It also tends to discourage the wider forms of debate. Khruschev's 1956 denunciation, and the beginning of the 'thaw', marked, at best, a temporary retreat from Stalinism in the Soviet Union. But with Kruschev's removal from office in 1964, and the steady ascent of Breshnev, the old model re-established itself, in practice if not in name. By the late 1960s the only 'critique' allowed of Stalin in the Soviet Union was that contained in Lenin's 1923 testament, which must count as one of history's greatest understatements. It should also be said that even during Kruschev's thaw there was no retreat from Stalinism in other parts of the Communist Imperium, in particular the GDR, Roumania, Albania and North Korea. Above all there was no retreat in China, where Mao was busy adapting Stalinism to local conditions. It was after 1956 that the divisions between China and the Soviet Union widened into a chasm. It would be hard to define Maoism as a 'dissident tendency.'White Guard 23:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Criticism of Communism" section's first sentance is waaaaaaay too long. If no one fixes that...err...relatively soon I'm just going to go and get rid of some of those names. Ugh...can anyone say "run-on?" Ittan 00:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Every external link leads to a marxist site, is this truly NPOV? --86.131.71.87 17:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Last paragraph in introduction

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

So if George W. Bush renames the the Republican Party to the Communist Party of the USA, and outlaws opposition which it is kind of doing, it sure as hell is rigging elections, would you call the USA communist? Despite its agreessive Neo-Con adgenda?

Communism in pop culture

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)

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)

Anarchist Communism

If one more person removes that section, I'm calling for arbitration. The paragraph was already in the article, I brought it out under a header to make it easier to find. Whatever the disagreements about the impact of anarchist communist ideas, there is no doubt that AC is the predominant non-Marxist form of communism over the past 150 years or so and has a place in any article on the theory of communism. It needs further work, with some stuff about Berkman and Goldman, in particular, given their impact in the US. Donnacha 17:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Do try to source it at least - that will make it less likely to be removed. I think it has a place in the article. CloudNine 21:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Started - though the whole article could do with proper sourcing. Donnacha 23:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop inserting the section on "anarchist communism." The material is only of interest to anarchists, who make up only a small fringe even among communists. Anarchism may be considered a distinct school of communist thought by some, but it does not warrant its own section in this article because encyclopedias are supposed to circumscribe information according to relevance. This article cannot give equal weight to every school of communism. Instead, Marxism-Leninism has been and should remain the clear focus of this article; Marxism-Leninism is of much greater interest to readers of a general encyclopedic entry because Marxist-Leninist parties ruled around one third of the world for much of the 20th century. Kropotkin, however, was largely forgotten, despite the attention he seems to attract in anarchist chatrooms on the internet. 172 | Talk 21:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter Kropotkin is not really anarcho-communist, According to Chronicle of the 20th Century, he disagreed with Bolshevism and the "Red October" Revolution. This was Bolshevik revolution was a golden era for all Communists, anarchist or not. Goldman, the aforementioned Anarcho-Communist, was deported to the Soviet Union. I would put Kropotkin into an older school of revoltionary thought. Please look into his life and works, I would like to know more about this "transitional" (transitioning from the early Russian democratic liberals of the early 1800's to Bolsheviks and SRs of the 1905 and 1917 revolutions) revolutionary. (Unsigned comment by User:TheDonald123)--

Absolute bullshit, anarchism is a living and breathing tradition that is at the core of the "anti-globalisation" movement. Anarchist Communism had a huge impact in the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution, in Spain during the Civil War, in the IWW, in Hungary during the up-rising against the Soviet Union, in France 1968, in the American New Left, etc. Few people, other than some hardcore sectarians, regard Stalinism or Maoism to be actual communism. This article is about THEORY, not about corrupt systems that called themselves Communist. To continue to remove the Anarchist Communist is POV-pushing, there's nothing like the same amount on it as there is on the Marxist-Leninist sections that make up the best part of the article. This list shows how wrong you are about anarchism being a fringe. Donnacha 22:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Stay civil. I am a professional historian, not one of the users pushing 'sectarian bullshit' around here. It seems as if you are too passionate personally and ideologically about this issue to stay civil and rationally consider the information at hand. What you consider 'actual communism' is neither here nor there. The article is about communism as a political movement and an ideology. The criterion for inclusion here is merely self-definition. 172 | Talk 17:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll stay civil, but you need to stop vandalising the article. 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. It was a footnote to Marxism, ridiculous for a movement that had far more impact 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. I am not seeking to remove anything about those forms of Communism, such as Stalinism, that do not meet any definition of communism. That would be pushing my POV. Instead, I am adding information about 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 18:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A paragraph on anarchist communism is of course appropriate to an article on communism as a political philosophy and as a "professional" historian that should be obvious. just because you, as a supposed "professional" historian feels that it is marginal should not preclude a mere paragraph in this article. You, 172, seem to be the one unwilling to allow the representation of relevant viewpoints as according to historical evidence. Blockader 19:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Reputable encyclopedias do not discuss anarchism in their articles on communism. Moreover, after searching EBSCO's research database, I've not found a single scholarly article, essay, or book that discusses anarchism within the context of communism; they are always treated as separate ideologies or movements. So 172 is correct to say that anarchism does not warrant a section in this article. -- WGee 08:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the large scale removal of sourced information from an article is a bad thing. The information has a main article and is related to communism. It takes up a single paragraph so it is not being given undue weight. Arguments that 'reputable encyclopedias do not discuss anarchism in their articles on communism' are pointless - wikipedia is not the same as other encyclopedias, don't try and draw parallels between them.

The term 'Anarchist communis(t/m)' is used across the net - we do not have to have a 'scholary' source for it, just a reliable one.

Also, can you provide some more reasoning as to why the paragraph should not be included as the arguments so far seem to be a mix of elitism and personal dislike of anarchism?-Localzuk^(talk) 10:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the large scale removal of sourced information from an article is a bad thing. That's preposterous; "large scale" removal of irrelevant or factually inaccurate information is a great thing. One problem with Wikipedia is that the threshold for the deletion of information is greater than the threshold for its addition, which is quite illogical if our goal is to build a factually accurate encyclopedia.

Although anarchist communism only takes up a single paragraph, it also takes up an entire section; in that sense it is given the same weight as Marxism and Marxism-Leninism and is thus given undue prominence. Like all other encyclopedias, Wikipedia must "circumscribe information according to relevance"; and the fact that reputable encyclopedias and scholarly sources do not discuss anarchism within the context of communism indicates its relative irrelevance.

-- WGee 19:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The notion that Wikipedia ought to takes its cues for inclusion from existing encyclopedias isn't very convincing, when much of Wikipedia's reason to be is to improve on those sources. Based on the article's title, I would expect a survey of various forms of communism. Or I would expect a clear definition or other rationale that excluded non-Marxist forms from significant consideration. The notion that a living tradition such as anarchist communism that's over 125 years old does not merit inclusion seems ridiculous. Libertatia 19:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As 172 said, "This article cannot give equal weight to every school of communism. Instead, Marxism-Leninism has been and should remain the clear focus of this article; Marxism-Leninism is of much greater interest to readers of a general encyclopedic entry because Marxist-Leninist parties ruled around one third of the world for much of the 20th century." 172's expert opinion is bolstered by the fact that reputable encyclopedias and scholarly sources also focus on Marxism-Leninism when discussing communism. And, yes, Wikipedia should and is required to derive its articles from reliable sources such as encyclopedias and academic essays. -- WGee 21:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want the article to be about Marxism-Leninism, then why not call the article that? Personally I couldn't care less whether 172 is a historian or Lenin himeself - it is irrelevant.

Wikipedia should use external sources to cite facts within articles but has no reason what so ever to mimic the editorial style or format of existing encyclopedias. Remember, most encyclopedias are based on the old 'print space is limited' restriction, so only the main subject matters are discussed - whereas, here we have unlimited space so can discuss all aspects of a subject - even 'fringe' areas.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Would someone care to explain to me how Communism has anything to do with Anarchy? In my opinion, they are on two opposite sides of the spectrum. Communism has a ruling class(which is arguably the most strict form of ruling in any type of government), whereas Anarchy has no ruling class at all. I was an Anarchist for about 2 years, then became a Communist since about 4 years ago. I see the two as being opposites, not a singular form of government intended by Marx himself. Rest assured, I used to think AC was the way to go for a while too, as I figured that through Marx's theory, capitalism would become Communism, then I thought that Communism would evolve into Anarchy, but recently I fail to see the connection between the two. Please.. enlighten me. --M3atwad1337 16:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

nevermind, a friend from school explained this to me.. seems to make perfect sense. It's like the best of both worlds, from anarchy and communism. This definatly deserves a spot in this article IMO.--m3atwad1337 14:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

they may be a small part of communism but they make up a decent chunk of the crazy communist bombing types especialy in the pre ww1 usa wich a couple of bombs can make any minority worth noting

"Communism" or "Marxism"?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

Request for Comment on Anarchist Communism Section

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)

• Going by the title, the article should cover all major traditions of communism, not just Marxist-Leninism. Both Proudhon's and Marx's early works regard communism as an already-existing movement within socialism. (Proudhon criticizing it, Marx supporting it). Either change the title or cover the subject-matter (including anarcho-communism). Jacob Haller 11:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agree 100% with Jacob's assessment. The section is not overly large and is not given undue weight so should stay. It is a sources summary of a subarticle - why remove it?-Localzuk^(talk)

• It seems clear that the section belongs in the article, as it covers a long-standing communist tradition. Libertatia 19:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

• I agree that a section on anarchist communism belongs in the article. However, I think the balance in that section is mistaken. It should say less about anarchism and focus on anarchist communism, surely. Since the discussion at this stage is about whether or not that section belongs on the page, perhaps we should first aims to win agreement on whether the section should be there and then later go onto its contents. However, we are fortunate in having a good entry on anarchist communism to which we can link. --Duncan 23:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Bakunin and Kropotkin may be mentioned in the discussion on the 19th century, in the context of the schism between the Marxists and anarchists. But there should not be a seperate section on "anarchist communism"-- a term used more by contemporary writers to categorize 19th century political figures that would have made little sense in the time period being discussed. Hence, professionally written encyclopedias do not devote separate section to "anarchist communism" in their general entries on communism. 172 | Talk 06:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• I think that anarchist communism section, with or without header, should stay, but only at this length. Expanding it would give undue weight to anarchist communism. -- Vision Thing -- 15:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• I readded the section as it appears to be consensus here that it should remain in the article, with only one dissenter, 172. Like Duncan and Vision Thing, I think the section could be better but should not be too much longer. Blockader 21:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether or not I am the only "dissenter" is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a democracy. [1] What matters first and foremost that the product is encyclopedic. Few people in the real world are "anarcho-capitalist" or "libertarian-socialist" netrods-- the kinds of people who are over-represented among Wikipedia editors. We should make this article usable for a general readership, and look to professionally written encyclopedias to get an idea about the kind of material which is relevant in an important entry like communism. 172 | Talk 22:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You are correct in saying that wikipedia is not a democracy. However, as you can see from this page, there is no evidence of 'voting' but there is a series of argumuments by different people as to why the section should remain. That shows consensus and not just a majority vote. The arguments for keeping it seem to be that the article is about Communism and therefore should cover all aspects of the subject matter and not just Marxism-Leninism. There seems to be an overwhelming provision of support for including a short paragraph and linking to the main article. Why should this article limit itself to a subject which the title is not appropriate? If you want to simply discuss one area of communism, shouldn't that be the name given to the page?-Localzuk^(talk) 23:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You don't seem to understand what I am trying to explain. I am not saying that we should discuss just "one area of communism." We should discuss early communism, the rise of Marxism and socialism, the split between communists and socialists, Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Titoism, Eurocommunism, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, just like professionally written encyclopedias. These schools of communism emerged as some of the most powerful political forces of the 20th century. It's fine to add a paragraph on 19th century anarchism, which I went ahead and did just now [2]. However, the content I was reverting earlier meant that the article was giving 19th century anarchism as much attention as much more important subjects like Maoism and Stalinism. 172 | Talk 23:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
        • It is your opinion that the subject is not as important, but most of the people here think it is important. Consensus is against you. Please stop comparing this site to 'conventionally written encyclopedias' as wikipedia is not a conventionally written encyclopedia. It is what the community makes it, and in this case the consensus is to have mention of the subject in a context that you do not like - you have to accept this.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
          • It is my opinion, but not all opinions are equal. More relevant to the subject is the fact that professionally written encyclopedias do not give the subject of "anarchist communism" the kind of prominence to "anarchist communism" in their general entries on communism that you people are advocating here. I am open to expanding the article's coverage of anarcho-syndicalism, but a separate section is inappropriate. 172 | Talk 20:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The "anarchist communist" issue is now settled

I went ahead and inserted a paragraph on anarchism, addressing the issue in its appropriate context in place of Donnachadelong's section. [3] We can now close this sterile debate and get back to some real work. 172 | Talk 23:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I already did propose an "alteration" offering expanded coverage on anarchism here. [4] 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)

"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)

Stay focused on the dispute at hand. I have inserted a compromise abridgement of your section on "anarchist communism" [5]. You keep reverting back to your own version without modification. [6] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [7] 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)

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)

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)

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)

The emergence of communism?????

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Force^{Got something to say?} 02:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hugo Chavez

Wow. This articles says, "Most recently, Trotskyist ideas have occasionally found an echo among political movements in countries such as Venezuela, where the Committee for a Marxist International has had contact with President Hugo Chávez;

the Hugo Chavez article says Chavez is a big money grubbing oil robber barron:

• "Chávez has gained a reputation as a price hawk in OPEC, pushing for stringent enforcement of production quotas and higher target oil prices."

Yes, I will remove that. Chavez has had contact with Trotskyists, so have the parents of Trotskyists. However, contact does not make one a Trotskyist. if we wanted an example of Trotskyist influence, Michel Pablo's former presence in the government of Algeria might be better. --Duncan 14:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Chavez was also in a ruling coalition and had contact with the communist party which is anti-trotskyist--CmrdMariategui 01:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Chavez has called himself a trotskyist publicly. It seems, however, that its more his personal opinion (that, if I'm not wrong has changed several times) and in no way should Venezuela's government be seen as trotskyist (at least no sane trotskyist would admit that). Here are two sources, one from bbc and another from a trotskyist site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6246219.stm (search for "trotsky" in the article) http://www.marxist.com/chavez-trotskyist-president120107-5.htm //Anonymous

Revert warring

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.[8] Earlier, JBKramer had restored the compromise draft, with the edit summary whole section on this provides undue weight. [9] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You continue to add it as a top-level header. This must stop. JBKramer 23:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

<---- This article is not here to defend Anarchy from the slanders of professional historians. It is to report what professional historians say about Communism. JBKramer 00:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Amen. 172 | Talk 00:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My last edit

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. [10] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Also, could you explain what's wrong with 172's proposal above? -- WGee 06:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

(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. [11] 172 | Talk 16:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Request for Mediation

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)

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)

Admin unlurks. Mediation is an excellent idea here. I fully support it. Admin relurks. Durova^Charge! 15:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the rationale for this bit on anarchism?

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)

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)

New compromise

I have uploaded a new version of the disputed text, aiming to incorporate all of Donnacha's proposals regarding article context without restructuring the article in a manner inconsistent with other encyclopedias. The changes are modest and easy to compare here The new version includes every single point mentioned in Donnacha's "anarchist communism" section, though now split between two sections. These points include: (1) The split at the First International and the formation of the International Workers Association (2) Anarcho-syndalicalist organization (3) The Spanish Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (4) The repression of Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman and (5) The anarchists in Ukraine. The major difference is that instead of a subsection on "anarchist communism" under the section "emergence of modern communism," the subsection is now "other currents" and also begins to discuss (with further work needed) the distinct tradition of Russian Marxism and populism. 172 | Talk 16:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You've made a complete mess of the coding, please fix it so that we can see. If this is the way to go, then there's major revisions to the entire article that should be made detailing each historical event in proper order and context. Donnacha 16:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by 'making a complete mess of the coding.' Whatever you're referring to, I think JBKramer corrected it in his edits. [12] Further, I don't understand your call for "major revisions to the entire article" following my proposed compromise. There's only a few differences from your version: (1) the "anarchist communism" subsection just has a new heading (2) the subsection now has a discussion of contemporaneous Russian Marxism and (3) your points about (a) the Spanish Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (b) the repression of Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman and (c) the anarchists in Ukraine have merely been moved to the section "growth of modern communism" for a chronological reason, so that they can be placed along with the material dealing with the 20th century. 172 | Talk 17:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, Spain and the CNT are missing (in fact, there should probably be fuller piece on the Spanish Civil War mentioning the POUM as well). Some material on the KDP and Rosa Luxemburg should also be in the article. Donnacha 17:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that stuff is not missing. It has merely been moved. See my post above. 172 | Talk 17:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't find Spain and the CNT anywhere. Donnacha 17:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Taking another look, I see I forgot the CNT. I thought I'd included it. This was a mistake on my part. I'm sorry. I'll go ahead and find a place for it. 172 | Talk 17:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I included it here. [13] 172 | Talk 17:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering point #2, anarcho-syndicalism is primarily a labor movement, and it isn't necessarily connected with anarcho-communism. Same goes for CNT. -- Vision Thing -- 17:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I wouldn't think the material in point #2 is important in a very general entry on communism. I posted it as a concession to Donnacha in order to stabilize the dispute on this page. Including it may go a bit off topic, but it doesn't hurt too much. If you want to work toward removing the content, discuss the matter with Donnacha. But in the interest of consolidating support behind a compromise draft, I'll stay uninvolved in a discussion of whether or not to include the material in point #2. 172 | Talk 18:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The pieces were written as a block that flowed, they need to be revised due to their new positions. As I suggested, there should be a piece on the Spanish Civil War somewhere, as probably the main historical clash between organised anarchists (most of them communist), the Trotskyite POUM and the Stalinism CP. Anarcho-syndicalism emerged as the main organisational form of the Anarchist Communists post-First International, but most of the movements became broader churches (including collectivist and sometimes council communist elements). The bit on Goldman and Berkman should be combined with the piece in the introduction on US repression, with some info about the IWW (which included prominent Marxists as well). The Ukraine piece should be threaded into the piece on the Russian Revolution. As I said, some major revisions are needed to make this more historical and less exclusively focused on Marxism. Donnacha 18:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The writing can be improved. Every Wikipedia article is a work in progress. I don't know what you mean by a piece on the Spanish Civil War. Keep in mind that there is a history of communism article. We can make this article more historical, but we should keep in mind that we ought to stay general in order to maintain a disction between this entry and the entry on history of communism. 172 | Talk 23:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. Unless I change my mind tomorrow, you've accomplished another element of the disruptive editor - driven away someone you disagree with. I'm sick to death typing loads of explanations and you failing to actually read them. I've written the importance of the Spanish Civil War as the main clash between three major communist factions that very well delineates the differences between them, but you ignore it. You've ignored virtually everything else I've mentioned, trying to equate anarchist communism, a worldwide movement that endures to this day, with some obscure Russian variant on Marxism. You ignored my suggestions about including German communism. You split my paragraph on anarchist communism so that the separate pieces no longer really make sense. You reject the need for citations, which virtually everyone else recognises as necessary for the credibility of Wikipedia. This article is dreadful. The introduction is a rambling mess. The rest of the article equates communism almost exclusively with Marxism and its descendents. Yet your idea of editing is to wreck an expert contributor's addition. You refuse to sign up to mediation because you clearly think you own this article. I give up. Donnacha 01:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been reading all your posts and bending over backwards to compromise with you and incorporate your ideas. My proposed compromise is essentially the same as your last edit-- just with a new heading and the last part or your section moved to a part of the article discussing the 20th century. I pointed you toward the history of communism article, where you can elaborate on the importance of anarchist communism during the Spanish Civil War. I'm puzzled about why you'd want to give up; but if you do, that's your prerogative. Regarding your comment on my addition of "some obscure Russian variant on Marxism," I'm even more puzzled. The Britannica entry on communism, for example, goes in considerable detail about Plekhanov and the Russian populists because of their influence on Lenin. Yet the entry does not mention, Kropotkin, for example. 172 | Talk 02:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Donnacha, given that there is an article on the history of communism, you don't need to delve too much into the history in this article. That's the reasons there's a series on Communism -- so all of the various issues can be covered.

Separate issue: 172's additions re 19th century Russian Marxism are quite apropos...I added a fact tag though, so we can get sourcing in that section so there will be no further debates about the validity or alleged obscurity of a "Russian variant on Marxism". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 08:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

See my 16:07, 21 November 2006 talk page post replying to Donnacha; the source is the Britannica entry on communism. You can add the reference. Or I'll do it if you don't beat me to it. For now, though, I'm signing off. I plan to get to it tomorrow. 172 | Talk 09:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

References

I don't know if it will help, but if everyone can start coming up with plenty of referecnes that are reliable and verifiable. The article reads well for the most part, but the best way to get it to a neutral point is to utilize the best references possible, be they book or web based. The article now only has a select few citations.--MONGO 17:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll go ahead and look through the article and insert citations where needed. I don't expect the work to be difficult. Because this article is just a very general overview on a very big and broad subject, we are mostly dealing in the realm of elementary facts that do not require citations. If we're having to add too many references, it may be a sign that we have strayed off-topic in too many areas from the very general narrative that we're supposed to be drafting. 172 | Talk 17:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I understand...and that probably explains why I have little difficulty following the article....political science is not my forte. Maybe come up with a half dozen book sources or something close to that...but whatever works out best.--MONGO 17:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Even better that political science is not your forte. The input of intelligent non-specialist will help us better figure out how to make the article accessible to the broadest readership possible. Skilled editors are just as helpful as subject area experts. I like your suggestion "come up with a half dozen book sources or something close to that." Perhaps this can be accomplished in part through a list of suggested readings in addition to the references. What do you think? 172 | Talk 17:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. We (the wikiworld) are required to source what is in the article, preferrably with footnotes, especially at key points. See WP:SOURCE, WP:V and WP:RS. If you can't start providing sources, then much of this will need to be considered WP:OR. I understand, 172, that you are trying to improve this article in the face of some serious opposition, and the sourcing will help you to accomplish your goal. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Back in 2002 and 2003, I was one of the first editors to start using footnotes in articles and articulating the principles behind the content policies you cite above. When I started work on this site, there were no automatic mechanisms for inserting footnotes. We used to have to enter the script for references manually. Moreover, there were no clearly defined policies mandating the use of footnotes. Even when these policies were introduced, there was some opposition. Some users argued that footnotes do not belong in encyclopedias. They argued other encyclopedias do not use them, and instead expect readers to have faith in the veracity of their material based on the reputation and credibility of their own publication. However, we determined that Wikipedia was different because our site lacks a system of professional peer review. Readers have to be able to verify our material themselves. Footnotes are necessary for readers to check easily the accuracy of contentious and obscure content. It's a good thing that these policies have now developed into a norm and a habit on this site. But a lot of times, these policies are misapplied, with editors going overboard, thinking that just about every factual claim requires a citation. Elementary facts do not require citations. Some articles do not need to have as many citations as others. A very broad, general topic like communism is mostly going to be referring to elementary facts. For example, no citation is needed to support a sentence like "the Bolsheviks and headed by Vladimir Lenin, succeeded in taking control of the country after the toppling of the Provisional Government in the Russian Revolution of 1917." Citations are required, for example, when summarizing a contentious thesis in the historiography of a particular subject, or asserting a little-known fact, which a reader will have a hard time figuring how where to look for verification. I will go through the article and insert citations where needed. But I bet only around 5 to 10 additional footnotes will be needed. 172 | Talk 23:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Unlike Mongo, my major was Poli-Sci, and while I have no real quibbles with most of what is in the article, there are far more than 5 or 10 things I'd footnote -- remember, we cannot "assume" that everyone "knows" that something is true, even when it's bloody obvious that it's true. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I'll take another look soon. The material will be new to some people. But we don't have to assume the readers are dumb. If an editor or reader is skeptical about a certain point, for example, it's easy to run across something like Encarta's entry on communism on Google. [14] I'll judge using the following criterion: I teach history to undergraduates, and if I see a point for which I'd expect a citation if it were appearing in a student's paper, I'll add it. If the point's an elementary fact, I'll expect Wikipedia editors to be familiar with it if they are working on this article. 172 | Talk 01:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of clogging up a general entry on communism with footnotes for elementary facts: not only is it visually unappealing, but it also raises doubts about the veracity of the article. I think we should only provide footnotes for the more obscure facts; elementary facts would be derived from the general references at the bottom of the page or from the daughter articles (which, in constrast, should be as thoroughly sourced as possible). -- WGee 01:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A handful of additional references and a list of suggested readings will help. But, as you say above-- explaining the matter better than I did, I think-- there's no need to go overboard. 172 | Talk 01:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but while that might be OK in the real world, this is not the real world. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article? and note the following, #*(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. Note for example, the 11/21/2006 featured article, "Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner" -- 70 refs. Now, I'm not saying we need 70 refs here, but we definitely need more than 9, heck we need more than 20 for that matter.

As stated earlier, I was a poli-sci major, and never had less than an A on a term paper (and had a 3.9 GPA overall in my major). Now, I'm not saying that this gives me any special insight or authority on this article or on its sourcing, but I will note that the two reasons I aced my term papers were, a) they were well-written (this article seems to be getting there), and, b) they were well-researched and well-referenced. Yes, I know this is not a term paper, but as was mentioned previously, it is not a peer-reviewed publication either. Thus providing citations is an excellenty way to raise Wiki's credibiity level. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My GPA was a little lower as an undergrad, but I went on to get a PhD in history. This doesn't give me any special insight either. Again, I'll look through the article once I'm done with an unrelated stack of paperwork and add citations where needed. Regarding reaching featured article status, as someone who has written FAs, the communism article is an extreme long-shot under any circumstances. The subject is so contentious that there is no way to satisfy everyone all the time. It takes an incredible amount of time merely to make sure this article does not turn into utter crap, let alone somewhat stay useful to readers, because communism, like many other articles on controversial subjects, inherently attracts the worst kinds of POV-warriors. You'd be surprised, I bet, if you took a look at the nonsense that passed for encyclopedia atricles before my rewrite of communism in 2005 and articles like state, socialism, and capitalism earlier this year. While I'll add more citations, unfortunately, given the way Wikipedia works in practice, we're going to have to work in the real world here. 172 | Talk 09:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It may help to take a look at Intelligent design, another controversial article which attracts POV pushers. The answer to that is more references. While when WP was in its infancy, emphasis on references was less, now Wikipedia is what, #17 ranked website? This requires higher standards for sourcing. From WP:V:

The policy:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to challenge and/or remove it.

|} That's simple enough. If it isn't sourced, it can be removed. I recognize that "common knowledge" need not be sourced, but given the variety of people who use Wikipedia, many of them high school or even grade school level, "common" is a small segment of knowledge. Sad and pathetic though it is, the average high school student learns as a totally new concept that Lenin and Stalin were not best of friends. Combine this with WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and policy is on the side of NPOV, accurate entries. POV warriors cannot highjack an article, because if the greater consensus of historians and pol sci experts is A, then B cannot be placed in the article with the same weight if it is a minor view, and cannot be put in the article at all if it is a tiny view. Look at the reliability and appropriateness of the sources - If one marginal book or website states that Che Guevara was a lousy doctor, and every other source, including seminal works on Che and books by those who are notable in their own right, and so on state that Che was an excellent doctor, then the preponderance of sources makes it clear that it is a vanishingly small minority view that Che was not a good doctor, and that should be excluded from the article. If some political pundit of today makes that claim, he is not an expert and he should be discarded. You're doing a great job here, 172, and I'm not quite sure why you are resistant to the suggestion more sources be added. It can only help the article, its reliability, and is a primary defense against POV pushers and soapbox warriors, because unsourced content is OR and can be removed s such. Sources exist in the "real world" and the way Wikipedia works now there is even a nice ref format complete with tool which can make creating references a breeze. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks KC for explaining.

172, I wasn't bragging about my GPA btw (although it might be too high to become president ;) I ws just noting why my term papers were successful. Congrats on the PhD -- a lot of hard work.

I would not be surprised by anything -- I've run across some truly horrific articles here and taken the time to get them up to snuff (with help from other editors, of course). I looked at the May Day 2005 version (which I believe is before you got involved...ugh.) It's much better now (needs sources ;) -- and I think the intro could be shortened, not bowdlerized, just a bit more succinct. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to second the issue regarding the need for refs...I know that the majority of those working on this article are better educated on this subject matter than I am, and that they see their additions as being common knowledge, but the issue is that with refs, we completely avoid the NOR issue...a cornerstone policy on wiki. Every sentence need not be reffed, just the key issues...I like to see an average of 10 refs per 10kb's...so a 32kb article will have about 30 refs (even 25 would be great)...and they don't have to be from 32 different sources...8 to 10 sources would be more than sufficient. Again, the article looks fine, but to give it the credibility, it needs further referencing.--MONGO 17:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, Jim62sch, and Mongo:

After having reread the article, I saw that the first section "early communism" was in particular need of referencing. Because the section aims to summarize a very wide frame of space and time, much of the material deals with matters of interpretation, rather than a more straightforward summation of the historical record as in some of the other sections. I went ahead and rewrote the section based on material in other encyclopedias and sourcebooks. [15] If I had complete editorial control over this article and were writing for an encyclopedia with a professional system of review, I would favor citing academic texts instead. But for our purposes here, citing sources like Britannica, Oxford, and Encarta is probably the best, in order to make it very easy for readers with very limited knowledge bases on the subject to verify the material themselves. I will soon work toward adding references to the other sections, but without rewriting the text as I did for "early communism," because, as I said earlier, the other sections are a lot more straightforward. 172 | Talk 22:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As of now, I have added references where needed throughout the rest of the article. Now what I think we should do is draft a list of suggested readings consisting mostly of academic secondary sources. 172 | Talk 07:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks 172. It is looking much better now. I hope you did not think I was being too much of a pain with this sourcing issue, but often what apears obvious to those of us who know a subject, isn't so obvious to people who don't.

A reading list would be a great addition, I think. I'm curious as to why Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto are not on the list. They would certainly back up the statements regarding the stated ideology of communism (and of course socialism). Books on Stalinism and Maoism might be beneficial, as would a reference to the use/development of Communism in modern China. I'll have to give some thought (and researh) into what would be good reading material. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;

I was thinking about a list consisting of recent, academic secondary sources. Perhaps we can draft a of secondary sources and another list consisting of original communist literature? 172 | Talk 06:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned, my knowledge of this subject matter is limited, so all I can do is check the refs provided to ensure they support the content written. If you have books that are well accredited, then so long as wwe know what page the info is gleemed from, then that is suffcient...so books are fine, so long, again as they are relatively widely accepted as being uncontroversial viewpoints...perhaps higher education level textbooks would be an excellent example for references.--MONGO 06:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking exactly that-- a list of suggested readings consisting mostly of higher education level textbooks 'widely accepted as being uncontroversial viewpoints', as you put it. Then, after reading Jim62sch's question 'why not include Das Kapital', I got the idea of drafting a second list-- one of famous and influential works on communism. Such a lit could consist of notable works by Marx, Lenin, and Mao on the one hand; and anticommunist classics, like Road to Serfdom on the other. What are your thoughts? Are you okay with the idea of two lists? 172 | Talk 06:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be quite good, I think, excellent idea. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 08:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Two thoughts

I think the into is just a bit long, and the Cold War years is just a bit short. Any opinions? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Yes, I know, I was trying to figure out what to cut as well. I was hoping that someone might have an idea and the one change you suggest would seem to be OK. What about Cold War years? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

Dvision of material of Communism articles

Please see comment at Talk:Communist party. --Soman 09:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Communism worldwide

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)

Just a comment

I see that this article is in over 60 different languages, its surprising. I'm just wondering if anyone else noticed.

-Why should it be surprising? The communism or socialism in former Yugoslavia (before 1989/90) was one of the most human living societies. Its focus was on the human wellbeing and individual happiness, not on the money. Cheers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.110.10 (talk) 05:23, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

lead section huge - needs decimating

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)

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)

India is included in a reference to "Third world countries". This is inaccurate. India is not a third-world country.

Logo

Does anyone else feel that Current Logo should be somewhat better? It seems a bit outdated personally, looks like a graphic from the 90's. Why not just use a simple hammer and sickle? Such as this: Simple Logo , I made the shape myself in Photoshop so its not taken from elsewhere. NBAwire:syxx 23:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think your version is better. I would suggest making the logo red on white, since yellow on red is rather Marxist-Leninist. --Duncan 09:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Duncan. Just a plain red hammer and sickle should do. Like this: ☭ ~Switch ^t 11:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I added a red on white logo any objections? NBAwire:syxx 19:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently someone just changed the image...personally I feel we should go with the Communism logo rather than an image of a statue. maybe we can use that image later in the Article.

This belongs at Template_talk:Communism. --Soman 10:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Switch, how did you make that hammer and sickle. What I mean is, what do you press on the numpad while holding alt? ☭--☭ 16:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's Unicode, so it depends on what software you're using. The Unicode for it is U+262D, meaning that in Wikipedia, if you type {{Unicode|&# x262D;}}, without the space between # and x, you get ☭. In other places it can just be &# x262D; (again, no space) that you have to type. For most Windows things, typing Alt+0262D should produce it. If you need to know how to type it in a different system, the Unicode article has explanations. ~Switch ^t 18:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Communist" States

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))

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)]

I like the first option. Will update in no less than 24hrs if no one objects. (JoeCarson 20:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC))

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)

Oops, I see that now. Agreed. (JoeCarson 13:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC))

Template:Communism sidebar

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)

A good place to ask this question is at Template talk:Communism. Xiner (talk, email) 14:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A dis informative piece, could have been written by Kaganovich

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)Paleocn

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)

You have a lot of complaints, you can be forgiven from skimming over them. However, most of your listed objections belong in other entries, as they do not relate to communist theory. There is a huge difference between a theory, its varied and disputed practice and the behaviour of those that claim a given philosophical title. For example, the notoriety of Peodophilia among Catholic priests does not invalidate Christianity or even Catholicisim. Quotes from the bible, of which Christianity is supposedly based, potentially could be used to condem christianity. So what is specifically wrong with your post? Anything whatsover in history good or bad that happened in self described communist countries like the USSR should be out, unless it relates specifically to the evaluation of implimentation of the theory of Communisim. The books you mentioned, why dont you submit the relevant quotations, if they relate to the theory. btw something is in a book, dont make it true. I find your mention of Dr Zhivago curious, I did not find it a remotely anti-communist book, rather it was anti-party. Poor Boris Pasternak was embarrassed by the great reception of Dr Zhivago in the west and tried unsuccessfully to get back into the Soviet Writers guild. He was no anti-communist.

Lennins death by STD or strokes, who cares, this is not a page on Lennin, his alleged personal character behaviour has nothing whatsover with the philosophy of communisim, perhaps with the implimentation of communisim if you were to somehow link a character trait attraction to communisim and his implimentation.

Pasternaks Description of Trostsky as a Neurotic Murderer, Who cares. Not just for reasons irrelevance to Philosophy, but not implimentation. The source, Pasternak who was behaving like a former cultist loosing his nerve, wanted to prove his loyalty by attacked the official most fashionable enemy of Stalin, Trotsky. No place on the Wikipedia.

Ditto for mention of Kaganovitch, Beria. Irrelevant, put it in another article relating to history of USSR.

Your unattributed, unproven claim regarding the conversions to christianity, I find grossly suspect. I will not speculate at your motivations.

Mention of the "Rosenbergs and other traitors in the USA". This is potentially one of your more relevant contributions, as it relates to action of individual communists, not their personal life. Sadly the content is 100% values driven, 0 facts which should be what the Wiki is about. Traitors to who, who defines traitors.

Mention of Sen Harry Truman? That guy was definitely one of the hawks of US Foriegn Policy. I do not consider anything comming from him as a reliable source. Why quote it without so much as corroboration from other sources

That is one way of reducing your number of objections so you can suitably detail them. You have done nothing to quote sources KommissarCPU

The introductory paragraph

I suggest we remove this PoV part: "The competing branch of Trotskyism has not had such a distinction." This is an introduction to communism, not Trotskyism. This should not be in the introductory paragraph also because of mis-information. "Stalinist" communism had many rivalries and why pick on only one example. We should just say that is was the moving force. Or we'll have to add Luxemburgism, council communism, etc. and many-many others in the sentence because you could argue they played even a lesser role. I suggest that this is a Stalinist PoV.