Talk:Communism/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 19

Marxism is not a (Scientific) Theory

I know this is somewhat POV on my part, but I object to using the term "Marxist theory". Marxism, which the term "Marxist theory" here is linked to, was (and is) a political and economic philosophy — not a scientific theory.

In my opinion (and that of most economists I know), it is also a poorly conceived philosophy, based on misunderstandings of classical economic philosophy. (And yes, I had to catch myself there, to avoid claiming that that philosophy is a "theory", too. See why we need to point out the difference?)

In any case, I think we ought not to claim anything that has not been (or cannot be) subject to empirical verification as a "theory", with all the scientific weight that implies. Comments? --BlueGuy213 (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds awfully close to Popper's theory of falsifiability, which is outdated. Lakatos' model of scientific research programme is much better. See this for details. →Σσς. (Sigma) 06:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the point of being hung up about the word "theory". People are comfortable throwing around the terms "literary theory", "economic theory", or "conspiracy theory", without the implication that these are a matter of natural science. With regard to verification or falsification, many people do argue that Marxism or certain Marxist theories have been proved false. It is certainly hard to argue that all the predictions of Marx have been proved true. Equally, it is hard to deny that some have been proved true. However, Marxist theories cannot be tested by experiments (like theories of the natural science) and are inherently controversial because they relate to society.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds to me like special pleading. Verification is a central part of the scientific method, so to claim it is "outdated" is to claim science does not apply to one's pet "theory". I agree it's true that a lot of people use the word "theory" to refer to things that are not scientific theories (e.g. string theory), and I know that is particularly common in the social sciences, but IMO that is part of why a lot of scientific people regard the social sciences with deep suspicion. I know it is not Wikipedia's place to establish what terminology is customary in a given field, but there are a lot of people who already have the same objection to labeling everything as a "theory", and think doing so contributes to a popular misconception that a "theory" is just some idea someone had. (Perhaps we need a Wikipedia page on theory definition controversy, along the lines of hacker definition controversy?)

As far as some parts of Marxism being verifiable, that's all well and good. But we don't do the same thing with, e.g. the theory of relativity: if even part of that "theory" could be shown to be in contradiction to the available evidence, then we would eliminate that part from what is generally recognized as the "theory". To say we can't discount Marxism as a "theory" because part of it is good is like saying we should not apply Occam's razor in the realm of social science. (And, by the way, IMO social science is — or at least should be within the scope of "natural science". Are humans somehow "unnatural"?)

Anyway, thanks for the comments and hope that provides some food for thought. And sorry for taking more than half a month to check back here. --BlueGuy213 (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I made a few small mistakes above: I should have said "if even part of the theory of relativity could be shown to be unverifiable even in principle, then it would be removed from the theory". And social sciences are generally considered outside of natural science, I guess. But my main point stands: anything that cannot be tested cannot be called a scientific theory, regardless of people's desire to have "theories" about everything, including the untestable. I understand why social scientists want their arguments to be theories, but wants do not make fact. --BlueGuy213 (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

g

British English

If this page is meant to be in American English, why is there a tag for a bot from Hendrick99 to keep putting it into British English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.13.73 (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2014

User hendrick99 is unilaterally switching the EngVar of the page, should be changed back 94.8.22.28 (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, per MOS:RETAIN and this diff from Bkwillwm, it appears American English is appropriate for this page. As Hendrick 99 has not provided any rationale for the change based on Wikipedia policy or guidelines, I've reverted his edit. This had to be done manually due to conflicting intermediate edits, wasting time. Note "Labour" is still present in the Lenin quote and in the title of the Party of Labour of Albania. These uses do not violate MOS:ENGVAR per WP:ARTCON. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2014

Communism isn't moneyless or stateless. Suneelio (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but yes, it is.

For reference: the state, in Marxist terminology, is a mechanism for class rule. It is the primary instrument of political power in class society, consisting of organs of administration, and of force. A state of one kind or another will exist as long as social classes exist.

Engels writes in The Principles of Communism that "when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the [proletariat], private property will disappear of its own accord, [and] money will become superfluous". This view would later be elaborated on by Lenin in The State and Revolution. He quoted Engel's declaration that "The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things", and builds upon that argument, concluding that "the more democratic the 'state' which consists of the armed workers, and which is 'no longer a state in the proper sense of the word', the more rapidly every form of state begins to wither away".

This sentiment has been echoed in many other theoretical works by reputable Marxists. Communism is moneyless and stateless. →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ideology

The word ideology appears 13 times throughout this article, including the first sentence:

Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a classless, moneyless,[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims at the establishment of this social order.

Ideology is used in this sentence to simply mean communism is a social, political, and economic set of ideas or beliefs (ideology) and movement but within Marxian thought, ideology means something radically different.

Example 1) "The German Ideology by Marx and Engels is the critique of the German view of German (and human) history by comparing it to what Marx argues is the essence of what it means to be human – a species defined by a social dynamic that makes continuous development central to its very being. That is, unlike other animals, humans are historical beings: they come to be through a history that is of their own making, albeit not a conscious one" (Teeple, 2013, p.7 -- http://www.socanth.sfu.ca/documents/doc/Volume_One_Package).

Example 2) In chapter 19 of Volume of Capital, "Marx examines the wage form as ideology, as obfuscation of the value of labour-power. Ideology, for Marx, is the presentation of the appearance of phenomena as if it were essential or true phenomena. This chapter is about wages as an ideological form, as the existing form of a certain phenomenon that conceals the underlying reality or essence of that phenomenon" (Ibid., p.77)

Example 3) Marx’s notion of ideology, which rests on the difference between essence and appearance.

‘…what is true of all forms of appearance and their hidden background is also true of the form of appearance “value and price of labour”, or “wages”, as contrasted with the essential relation manifested in it, namely the value and price of labour-power. The forms of appearance are reproduced directly and spontaneously, as current and usual modes of thought; the essential relation must first be discovered by science. Classical political economy stumbles approximately onto the true state of affairs, but without consciously formulating it. It is unable to do this as long as it stays within its bourgeois skin.’ (Ibid., p.79)

Example 4)Ideology Theory in Wolfgang Haug Fritz Historical Critical Dictionary of Marxism / Historical Materialism 15 (2007) 211–239 http://www.inkrit.org/hkwm-int/aritcles/IdeologyTheory.pdf

"Critique of ideology as necessarily inverted consciousness can appeal to nume - rous formulations in which Marx and Engels (for example, in relation to religion) speak of ‘inverted world-consciousness’, ‘independent kingdom in the clouds’, ‘distorted conception’, ‘standing on its head’ and so forth (e.g. MECW 3, 175; MECW 5, 27 et sqq.; MECW 35, 19). Ideology is accomplished by the thinker with a ‘false consciousness’ who misses the real motives impelling him; ‘otherwise’, notes the late Engels, ‘it would not be an ideological process’ (MECW 50, 164). Ideologists regard ‘their ideology both as the creative force and as the aim of all social relations’ (MECW 5, 420). Such an inversion is compared to that of a their physical life-process’ (MECW 5, 36).

The context shows that the claim that Marx understood ideology as ‘empty reflex’ and as ‘form of consciousness [ forme-conscience]’ (Althusser, EphP 1, 496 et sq.; cf. SLR, 294 et sq.) cannot be sustained. It leaves out the ‘historical life process’ that is at stake here: the situation of ‘standing on its head’, a characteristic of ideology, is treated as an effect of the social division of material and intellectual labour. For only by means of this can consciousness really ‘flatter itself that it is something other than consciousness of existing practice, that it really represents something without representing something real’; only now is there ‘the formation of “pure” theory, theology, philosophy, morality’ (MECW 5, 45), which, separated from relations, are practiced by specific intellectual groups ‘as a profession, that is, as a business’ (379; cf. 62, 92). What makes possible and produces the reversal of consciousness is the real detachment of intellectual activities from social production, their growing independence and their predominant position in relation to production.

The separation of material and intellectual labour is, in its turn, embedded in the formation of private property, classes and the state (46 et sqq.), so that the camera obscura is to be understood as a metaphor for the ‘idealistic superstructure’ of class society as a privileged sphere reserved for the mental labour of the ideologues (89). In this sense, it has been proposed that the attention of ideology theory should not remain bound to the inner image of the camera obscura, but should come in from the side and investigate the material arrangement and thus the socially unconscious of the discourse of consciousness (Haug 1984, 26): ‘Th e detachment of consciousness is framed and constituted by the material arrangement [dispositif, in a Foucauldian sense] of social domination’ (24)."

Replace the word ideology with something else since its use in an article about Communism and Marxian thought gives the impression that ideology means the same thing as ideas or beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2014

Hi, I'm from OCADU. I am working on a project for improving the visual images. I did three political systems comparison. I've uploaded two successfully, since this article is protected, Please upload this image to help compare to "Capitalism" and "Socialism". This image illustrates from a neutral point of view, which straight out the biggest difference from the other two systems.

The government is the most important.

Xs11ke (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done You state that you have created this image - but what is it based upon? Your opinion, interpretation or beliefs (original research)? or a reliable source?
If it is based upon a reliable source, that source needs to be cited, a suitably referenced caption added and a logical place for its inclusion in the article agreed.
Furthermore, in its current form, the text is illegible, even when clicking on the image to go to the Wikimedia Commons page which shows a larger version, so its addition would create confusion, rather than benefitting the article. Arjayay (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note that your additions to Socialism and Capitalism have already been removed, by another editor, for exactly the same reason - as is explained on your talk-page.Arjayay (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Strict definition of communism

Hi, is it correct to say that communism is inherently moneyless and stateless? There are many types of communism and many communist movements, there is communism without Marxism, Marxism without communism, and there was communism before Marx wrote anything. F. Engels defined "communism" simply as the "doctrine of the liberation of the proletariat". (Principles of Communism, 1847) Zozs (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There are two different concepts here both being expressed using the same term. "Communism" as a socioeconomic system and "Communism" as a political/social movement, the latter of which Engels' definition is referencing. The lead needs to do a better job at distinguishing between the varying uses of the word. But generally, in terms of economics, communism refers to a hypothetical economic arrangement that does not utilize markets and money for the allocation of goods. This is true for both anarcho-communism and Marxian communism.-Battlecry 10:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Communism by country

I noticed we only have articles about communism in Colombia, Korea, Peru, Poland, and Vietnam, yet we have articles about anarchism and liberalism in almost all countries, I think we should have more articles like this for other countries where communism has played a huge role in their history (such as Albania, Bulgaria, Cambodia, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, Germany, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Russia). Charles Essie (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Claudia

I'm CLaudia McHenray, and i'm letting you know that i will be coming to this article and others related to it later on, but i first wantt o try out some other topics before i edit this one on my expertise, this way i won't seem completely biassed. I'll be searching aroudn and come back in about 15 to 30 days. Just wanted to give yall a heads up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudia McHenry (talk • contribs) 02:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Communist symbolism

Here is something on the psychological nature of symbolism as a product of the destructive communist mentality - do please read through and decide if it may fit into the external links section of any wikipedia article epistemologically associable. Wiki Chymyst 12:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems very far-fetched, and doesn't have much to do with Communism.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

At least that. But also, bolstered by an explicit claim that the "communist mentality", however you might define it, is inherently destructive, it fails the WP NPOV principle.PårWöet (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Mundopopular edits

Thank you for your contributions, Mundopopular, but I believe that some of them make the article worse and therefore I will argument here why so.

Edit #1. Changed "The movement to develop communism, in its Marxist–Leninist interpretations, significantly influenced the history of the 20th century, which saw intense rivalry between the states which followed this ideology and those who didn't." to "The movement to develop communism, in its Marxist–Leninist interpretations, significantly influenced the history of the 20th century, which saw intense rivalry between the world's most advanced capitalist states and socialist states."

The original sentence is perfectly neutral; the second one is not. A reliable source used within the article gives proof of the notability of the differing views on whether these states were "socialist" or not; therefore, making any such judgment must be avoided.

Edit #2. Removed "(even though there are communist tendencies which are not Marxist)." out of "Communism was first developed into a scientific theory by German philosopher and social scientist] Karl Marx, and the collective understanding of this Scientific socialism|scientific approach is today commonly referred to as Marxism (even though there are communist tendencies which are not Marxist)."

I see no reason why remove this information. The article says that communism was first developed into a scientific theory by Karl Marx, and that that is known as Marxism; it seems appropriate to mention that Marxism is not the only form of communism, something which the wording may lead into thinking. It is the proper place and it is stated nowhere else in the lead.

Edit #3. Changed "bourgeoisie - a minority who derive profit from private ownership of the means of production" to "bourgeoisie - a minority who privately own the means of production and purchase proletarian labour to operate them at a fraction of its true value, the surplus being derived as profit."

I honestly see no reason to go into such explanations in the lead of the article; it is more elaborated upon later on. The first sentence explains the exact same in an easier to understand and concise manner.

Edit #4. Changed "As scarcity disappears from the development of the productive forces, goods are made available on the basis of free access. This results in the disappearance of social classes and money." to "As scarcity disappears from the development of the productive forces, goods and services are made available on a communal basis of free access. This ultimately results in the reduction and end of individual economic calculations and exchanges, and thereupon the disappearance of social classes and money."

What does a "communal basis" mean? That is much harder to understand for the average reader. One of the points of the final development of communism is that free access exists; there is no exclusion at all. Also, "communal" entails a specific system; what this system may imply may not apply here.

Why make the wording complex to explain the exact same? Zozs (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

Recent edits have cut down the references to actual Communist governments (Maoism, Hoxhaism, Titoism, Juche etc) but left the sections on obscure alternative movements, many of which like Situationism aren't normally thought of as Communist. This is really distorting the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This is an article about communism, not "communist states". If you are seeking that information, you would rather find it in the articles of the history of the People's Republic of China, Albania, Yugoslavia, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Maoism, Hoxhaism, Titoism and Juche have no ideological relevance. They are Marxism-Leninism, and the sections about them were only describing Mao, Hoxha, Tito and Kim's personal preferences. There are already extensive articles which talk about them. I mean, look at what they had been saying:

Maoism is the Marxist-Leninist trend of communism associated with Chairman Mao Zedong of the Communist Party of China and was mostly practiced within China. Nikita Khrushchev's reforms heightened ideological differences between China and the Soviet Union, which became increasingly apparent in the 1960s. Parties and groups that supported the Communist Party of China (CPC) in their criticism against the new Soviet leadership proclaimed themselves as 'anti-revisionist' and denounced the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the parties aligned with it as revisionist "capitalist-roaders." The Sino-Soviet Split resulted in divisions amongst communist parties around the world. Notably, the Party of Labour of Albania sided with the People's Republic of China. Effectively, the CPC under Mao's leadership became the rallying force behind a parallel international Communist tendency.

And that's all the Maoism section was saying before it was cut down... and the exact same for Hoxhaism, Titoism, and Juche. Yeah, ok, that has no ideological relevance at all. This is only saying "Maoism is Marxism-Leninism but the politics in China were different from these in the Soviet Union". So what I did was cut Hoxhaism and Maoism to one single paragraph: which explains that they are variants of Marxism-Leninism, which explains the "anti-revisionist movement", and which explains the distancing of certain other "socialist states" (Albania, China...) from the Soviet Union. Clean and nice. The article was too long, now it's just the perfect length and virtually no information was removed - it was simply re-structured in an efficient way, and with each section being allocated as much notability as it has in this topic (which is "communism", not "communist state", not "socialist state", not "Marxism-Leninism", not "Mao Zedong", not "History of the People's Republic of China", not "Sino-Soviet Split", not "Soviet Union", not...) Zozs (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This gives undue weight to obscure alternative movements, and downplays Communism as it was actually practised.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

These "obscure alternative movements" are relevant to the article at hand ("Communism"). The explanation about Maoism and Hoxhaism was kept, but written more efficiently in a shorter space (which it deserves for THIS topic - ideology of communism) - without removing any information at all, there just isn't a huge picture of Mao now. Like I said, you're looking for other articles; this is the article for "communism", not "state socialism", not "Soviet Union", ... Zozs (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about "Communism", not the Ideology of Communism". Before my reason edits, this article had 43 mentions of "anarch-", 21 of "Trotsky-", and only 10 of "Mao-". China just happens to be the most populist country in the world. I think it's more notable than some squat in Europe. Ideologically, Maoism has been as significant as Trotskyism, in that it developed a dissident Communist movement, differing in that it saw the degeneration of the USSR as occurring after Stalin, rather than after Lenin, and in that it orientated towards less developed countries. I have deleted the sections on "Autonomism" and "Situationism" as the text of their main articles did not identify them as "Communist". I raised this issue a year ago. There has been no substantial response. Rather, the recent edits have given more and more weight to these marginally relevant movements.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The particular section the information was in was "Marxist communism" - which is clearly a section about ideology, and thus only things which are ideologically notable. Maoism is not ideologically relevant in the same way Trotskyism is whether it is a tendency more followed or not - Maoism is little more than Mao's brand of Marxism-Leninism. The difference between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism and the historical split between them is very significant, notable and ideologically relevant, the rest is not. By the way, I don't mind your edits so far (they may very well be making the article better, I don't know), but I don't know if someone else would. Zozs (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jack Upland and Zozs: I agree with Jack Upland, the latest edits are bad. And to be clear, Maoism means three different things; Mao Zedong Thought, Marxism–Leninism–Maoism and Maoism (Third Worldism)). The term Maoism is used by the West, not by China or the actual communists.. At last, Mao Zedong Thought was not a Marxist–Leninist trend, it was Marxism–Leninism adapted to Chinese conditions (similar to the later concept socialism with Chinese characteristics).. That Hoxhaism and Titoism is mention one is laughable, and that Juche is not mentioned at all just proves how bad this article is... At last, the "Etymology and terminology" is terrible. Needs a complete overhaul. --TIAYN (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether Maoists refer to themselves as "Maoists" or not. Here we go by reliable sources, not primary sources. If Maoism is "Marxism-Leninism adapted to Chinese conditions", then it obviously is a "Marxist-Leninist trend" (and "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is nothing but a propaganda term used by the CPC to suggest that the party is sticking to "socialism"...). Juche does not have anything to do with this article; it is not a communist tendency, not even by their own definition. Hoxhaism is really nothing but Marxism-Leninism and opposition to post-Stalin Soviet policies, there's nothing to write on it. The section about "Marxist communism" is about ideologies, not about what certain leaders did in certain countries. Zozs (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Zozs: You're opinions have no place in WP; Juche was conceived to follow the Marxist-Leninist tradition (the references were later dropped), and socialism with Chinese characteristics is a Marxist-socialist term conceived by the Chinese. You don't have the right to define what is, and what is not Marxist/Communist, and you don't have the right to state that an ideological concept by the CPC is merely "propaganda" (where is you're proof that it was conceived purely for propaganda purposes)?.. And from you're writings, its seem like you hardly know what communism/Marxism is.. You should stop editing articles you know little about (you're opinions are damaging the article).. At last, it does matter what the Maoists think, since we are talking about three separate ideologies. It had been different if there were one, but there are three... On a side note, even the Wall Street Journal refers to China as socialist :P --TIAYN (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am basing myself on reliable independent sources. You are basing yourself on primary sources and your own personal opinions. Juche is not a Marxist-Leninist trend; North Korea was started off as a Marxist-Leninist state is what you meant. I agree: I don't decide it, reliable sources have to define it. The rest is simply personal attacks on me - please do not use these. The article is only part of a blog, and says: "That Xi is clearly an admirer of at least some of the ways that Mao sought to keep China on the socialist path is no surprise". This is really no source to define the economic system as China at all. Zozs (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The only thing you do Zozs is cherry-picking, why you're even online is difficult to understand. --TIAYN (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits, same old stuff

This is copied from my talk page. @Zozs: Yes, people have spoken against these changes (whether certain states can be described socialist, or the status of North Korea). Several times. In previous discussions. All you've done is try to push through your preferred version, ignoring previous discussions, acting with an extreme case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. In particular with regard to the issue of whether certain states can be described as socialist or not. There's already several pages of discussion on this on the article talk page and elsewhere. All you've done, is just waited a month till old discussion were archived and tried to do the same damn thing over again. I believe this is like the third or fourth time you've tried to pull this off. Until you convince people of your views, you should really cease this kind of tendentious behavior. I'm not going to waste my time repeating the same damn thing over and over again, especially when it's been said by other people. It's up to YOU to present novel arguments, not badger and bore people into submission.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what this guy is going on about but he admitted that he has no point in his user talk page. Zozs (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't take Das Kapital to figure out that North Korea is not socialist at all. →Σσς. (Sigma) 22:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Sigma, lay off the original research. Zozs, you know very well what I'm talking about. You've been pushing a particular POV and annoying the hell out of people for several months now. You come to some article try to ram through your changes, you get reverted and warned for disruptive editing you then try it on another article then get reverted and warned again. Then you lay low for a week or two, come back and try the same thing again. Over and over. You're suffering from a bad case of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT and you're basically just wasting productive time and labor of others (Marx wouldn't approve).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

... do you have anything to back yourself up at all? All my changes are backed by reliable sources. At your talk page we already discussed and you conceded your point, asking me to "leave you alone". Zozs (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Lay off the western propaganda. North Korean society is nowhere near the "democratic control of the means of production by the working class for the good of the community rather than capitalist profit". →Σσς. (Sigma) 02:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"Western propaganda"??? Oooookkkkayyyyy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated the article to reflect this. →Σσς. (Sigma) 02:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Too much is being made of the terminology used by North Korea. It is true that North Korea has gradually replaced "Marxism-Leninism" with "Juche" as the guiding doctrine, and more recently dropped mention of "Communism" from the Constitution. However, it still describes itself as "socialist", and its Constitution uses similar language to the Chinese Constitution. More importantly, these changes in official language were not accompanied by significant political or economic changes. On the contrary, North Korea has not embraced the reforms undertaken by the rest of the "socialist camp". Rather the terminological changes express an estrangement from the wider Communist movement. North Korea has not changed. It still has a personality cult like those of Stalin and Mao. It still has a command economy which suppresses private markets. Of course, you can argue that this is a distortion of what Communism should be. But this is only one point of view, and it applies equally to the other "Communist countries".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There's private markets (which are de facto allowed and very prominent, omnipresent in fact), and many state-run companies are de facto ran by capitalist individuals but held as "state company" on paper (which means nothing anymore). The private markets are very well known and widely acknowledged by reliable sources so I don't think I need to explain them further. As for the private companies: [1]. Another article in The Telegraph spots: "As much as three-quarters of the country's household income now comes from the private sector, estimates Andrei Lankov, a professor at Kookmin University in Seoul." And many more... just look it up. Zozs (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jack Upland and Zozs: Who cares if they allow private markets; in all other cases, its the movement which is allowed to redefine their ideology (but it seems that communism is an exception). Its not like the Democrats are not the Democrats any longer because do not support slavery any longer or the suppression of black civil liberties, its not like Gorbachev stopped being a communist since he introduced democratic reforms, its not like the former president of Brazil Lula stopped being socialist when he pursued a reformist approach during his presidency.... Chen Yuan once said (responding to a comment made a Westerner that China was no longer a communist country); "We are the Communist Party and we decide what communism means." This would totally cynical if not for the fact that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Hoxha, Mao and everyone really, redefine basic features of communism to serve their interests. Why suddenly China or North Korea for that matter is less socialist because of that I don't know. Of course, I must admit, I don't consider North Korea socialist in any sense (rather just a republic with monarchial pretensions), but to claim that Juche doesn't belong in an article about communism is nonsense. Nonsense I tell you. It has every right to be here, just as Stalinism, Trotskyism and so on. Remember? Stalin referred to trotskyism as a reactionary, anti-revolutionary course (should we remove trotskyism too), remember China claimed the USSR was state capitalist from post-1953 until 1981/2 (should we remove every mention of Khrushchev, Brezhnev and co)? Of course not, stop censuring WP you fool. --TIAYN (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Look, you may not understand this, but words have definitions and articles on Wikipedia are not subject to be stick to information propagated by states. Gorbachev a communist, Lula a socialist? No offense, but are you on drugs? And we define things by what they say of themselves? No, we don't. Yet you cite "we define what communism means" - implying that Wikipedia must follow whatever definitions are in use by people currently in power somewhere, who claim to be the current exponent of a certain topic, and immediately treat as truth any "information" they spew - even if they admit they are re-defining just for their own benefit. Please review Wikipedia guidelines; a core lack of understanding is revealed here. Also, if they have the right to redefine what they are, well, North Korea purged all references to communism. Juche simply has no relevance within communism article, because in practice it is not distinguishable from Marxism-Leninism and in theory it has abandoned "communism". As simple as that. Zozs (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I said that North Korea suppresses private markets, not eliminates them. Here is an article by Lankov which demonstrates that point: [2]. If you travelled between China and North Korea, you would notice a stark contrast. If private markets are omnipresent, why are they invisible? To say, "Juche simply has no relevance within communism article, because in practice it is not distinguishable from Marxism-Leninism" is a total non-sequitur.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you propose is added about Juche that makes sense within both the lesser context and greater context of the article, that is not redundant, and that is more extensive than explaining it is the tendency in North Korea? Zozs (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Zozs, Jack Upland, Σ, and Volunteer Marek: Juche is communist; all the socialist states of the world considered it socialist, officially at least, then it is socialist (and people in the free world most commonly associated Juche with Stalinism, eg a form of socialism)... Alas, people still call Gorbachev a communist, people still call Lula socialist, people still call North Korea Stalinists, and people still call China socialist/communist whatever. You're seeking a clear definition, but that doesn't exist. There does not exist, and has never existed one definition of what communism is; the Soviet Union under Stalin pretended that one definition existed, but that is clearly not true. The only way to define what is communism is by its shared, and shared attributes, and I tell you this; China and North Korea share many attributes to the Soviet Union before 1985.--TIAYN (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources. Therefore, it doesn't matter what "socialist states" say of each other, and it doesn't matter what "people" call other people. Scholarly definitions exist, and Wikipedia is based on them. Zozs (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The scholarly of Juche is that it is socialist in the sense that it is Stalinist; the second view is that is not socialist but xenophobic nationalist. Yes, it does matter what the other socialist states believed. --TIAYN (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Beyond North Korea, the issue is that the article as it stands minimises actual Communist governments, as most people would understand them. Furthermore, the statement that Trotsky and Trotskyists have opposed "Marxism-Leninism" is not one that I think Trotsky or Trotskyists have generally made.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Trotskyists are Marxists and Leninists... it's different from Marxism-Leninism, which is the name Stalin invented for his own ideology. Trotskyists tend to call Marxism-Leninism by a more suitable name: "Stalinism" (and yes, Trotskyists acknowledge that "Marxism-Leninism is Stalinism"). They criticize it a lot. Zozs (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your point, but I think the expression of it is likely to confuse the ordinary person. This is why Wikipedia has a NPOV policy. If people want to read about the Trotskyist position they can go to other websites. And furthermore, whatever you think of him, Trotsky himself would never have accepted a worldview that minimised the relevance of actual governments (though they might be "deformed workers states" in his terms) and boosted armchair activists.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

What changes do you propose, then? It seems just natural, when describing the rise of Stalin, to also say that the de facto leader of the opposition was Trotsky. Zozs (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

How to make it more neutral? All POVs are notable and attributed. I'm open to suggestions, though. Zozs (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the issues have been amply discussed above.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Zozs: Discussion with you is nonsense. Who cares what they think? Gorbachev believed that Stalin had deformed socialism (which he claimed had dropped basics socialist tenets in the name of totalitarianism), and he introduced perestroika/glasnost to return the Soviet Union to the proper socialist road. Despite this Stalinism still remains a socialist ideology.. Stop removing valuable information. --TIAYN (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

New edits

Before edit: Communism is most associated with Marxism, which considers itself the embodiment of scientific socialism. According to Marxism,

After edit: The German philosopher and social scientist Karl Marx, generally credited as the father of scientific socialism, predicted that communism is the end goal of all social development which will inevitably come into being as the most advanced socio-economic system. According to Marx's theory,

First of all, "scientific socialism" is a term invented by Friedrich Engels to refer to Marxism and its superiority (according to him) over utopian socialism. Marx is not "generally credited as the father of scientific socialism", because that would imply that there are disagreements over this, or that "scientific socialism" is some sort of global concept which has multiple variants.

Marx never "predicted" that communism is the "end goal of social development". For starters, according to Marxism, one of the major differences between Marxism and utopian socialism is that whereas utopian socialism reflects an author's personal thoughts about a better society and holds that it can be implemented "on will", Marxism analyzes the natural evolution of history, not "goals". Consequently, according to Marxism, communism is the natural evolution over capitalism, not the "end goal of all social development". Additionally, Marx never said that communism represents some sort of final stage, where history gets frozen. That is ridiculous. At most, it would shift the field of historical change from the kind that is studied in historical materialism to another, but even this Marx did not say. This is not "all social development". Marx also never said that communism is "the most advanced mode of production/socio-economic system" (what does this even mean? how is "advanced" measured? which sources use this term) that would ever exist. And Marxism is not "Marx's theory", it is Marxism... surely still a theory and still developed by Marx, but the emphasis on that it is "Marx's" and that it is a "theory" is undue weight.

Before edit: The October Revolution, led by Lenin and Trotsky, set the conditions for the rise to power of a Marxist party in Russia, eventually resulting in the creation of the Soviet Union, with the aim of developing socialism and eventually communism. Lenin never claimed that the Soviet Union had achieved socialism; in fact, Lenin openly admitted that state capitalism was in place, but also stated that socialism was eventually going to be developed. Lenin, in his last days, asked for Stalin to be removed from his position.

After edit: The October Revolution, led by Lenin and Trotsky, led to the establishment of the world's first socialist government in Russia and its former subjects, which were reunited as the Soviet Union. Lenin, the founder and leader of the Russian Communist Party, believed that because it was so backward compared to the rest of Europe (and anticipating the greater revolutions to take place in the industrial centres of Germany and Britain), Russia would have to develop through the capitalist phase of development under socialist regulations and close supervision until the conditions would allow for socialist production to take over; Lenin called this "state capitalism"

First of all, the sourced statement that Lenin asked for Stalin to be removed (which is relevant because of the article structure - it is directly the next topic to discuss; the conflict between Stalinism and the opposition for power) has been deleted.

The edit is based on original research, and has no supporting sources. First of all, there are two possible meanings of the word socialist we can use in this context. The Soviet definition of "socialism", and the definition that "a socialist government is one which is ran by a socialist party". By definition, what was being done under the "capitalist phase of development" does not match the former, and, as we can see, the second definition is nearly useless, only serves to confuse, and is often subject to editors' interest. For instance, Spain would never be named a "Socialist government" in the way it is being done here, even though it's been run by a "Socialist" party. If by "Socialist" we mean a party which names itself this way, then what is so interesting here, when even in a completely ordinary state such as Spain there can be a "socialist government"? There were, in fact, probably also earlier "socialist governments" of this kind. What is relevant in Russia is obviously that it is the first place where a Marxist party rose to power.

Lenin was not the founder of the "Russian Communist Party", - wait, were we not naming governments based on the party's name, would it not be a communist government then? How ridiculous - a term which did not even exist in that time. He was part of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party and led the split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks - being the leader of the Bolshevik faction. And, applying the naming-based-on-party logic again, would it not be a "social democratic government", then!?

What we can, without doubt, say about the Soviet Union, which is completely objective and accurate, is that its professed goal was to develop communism. This is relevant seeing as this is the lead for the "Communism" article, and if it had nothing to do with communism then it makes no sense to write about the Soviet Union here.

The October Revolution did not, by itself, reunite anything. The Soviet Union was established later, as they became reunited.

What is a "socialist regulation"? In fact, regulations as used in this context, i.e. management over capitalism, implies the exclusion of socialism. This term was invented by the editor.

The point in the state capitalist debate is not whether there are "regulations" (which would actually imply regular capitalism rather than state capitalism). The point is nationalization vs. socialization; i.e., the difference between ownership by state and actual management of the means of production by society, a very important topic within Marxism. When the economy is nationalized, that is what is called state capitalism, and when it is socialized, it is rather known as socialism or communism.

Considering all of this, I prefer the older version of the lead, before these two edits. Zozs (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Length

Verily, I quote:

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. […] Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article.

The long lede fails on this! Who would like to agree or disagree with me? --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(1) There is no opinion-taking in the lead. Everything is described based on reliable sources. Users such as Mundopopular and Tomh903 have failed to give any actual arguments and, rather, have simply stated their personal opinion when they noticed the article didn't fit their politically radicalised dogmas - exactly what they're accusing someone else of doing! All Jack Upland said is "yeah" and "it's not encyclopedic" (I don't agree with either statements), and I don't see what improvement can be made with this information.

(2) To understand communism, the difference between Mardxism-Leninism, Marxism and other currents must be explained, in the introduction of the article as it is very basic information. There is no way to explain this without the way it is currently done now (it could be done with short text in an opinion-taking way, saying either "Marxism-Leninism is Marxism!" or "Marxism-Leninism is the opposite of Marxism!" but making it neutral like it is now requires long explanations). There is no way to explain Marxism-Leninism in a neutral way without explaining the Russian revolution first. Understanding the article is impossible for someone who does not understand this. It is absolutely essential.

(3) Perhaps the lead is long (about as long as the lead in the articles for some topics with similar relevance), but the topic (Communism) is very relevant and very complex and therefore deserves a long lead. There is no way for the article to make sense without explaining all basic information like it is now in the lead. Everything that is explained is very basic. The guideline recommends a 4-paragraph lead for a 30,000-character long article, and here we have 5 paragraphs for a 70,000 character long article. Zozs (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've established a new version of the lead which is shortened and deals only with ideological aspects, not history. Zozs (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

"To understand communism, the difference between Mardxism-Leninism, Marxism and other currents must be explained"

No, to understand the difference between Marxism-Leninism, Marxism and other currents then the differences must be explained but to understand the concept of communism none of that is necessary. And it doesn't belong in the lede. Helpsome (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Not really. What is going to stop someone from thinking "oh yea this 'communism' refers to what happened in the Soviet Union"? 37.15.182.40 (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That is what reading the article is for. The lede isn't supposed to answer every single question anyone might ever have. Helpsome (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is muddled and inaccurate (probably due to multiple edits by persons with various axes to grind). I recommend that the article originator revisits the topic and re-writes what was probably an excellent treatise before it got hacked to pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrcsuk (talk • contribs) 00:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. You can, however, easily find earlier versions of the article under "View history".--Jack Upland (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I was about to start a talk page discussion about the lead of this article, not knowing that one was already in progress. Quite frankly, I think the lead is appalling - it's amateurishly written, vague, and biased. One would not expect a serious work of reference to talk in such sweeping and ill-defined terms of "other communists" and "such communists." Just awful. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to find a better term to describe non-Marxist-Leninist Marxists. It sounds like an excuse to discredit the whole lead by focusing on one minor detail. Zozs (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not a minor detail, Zozs. It's one of several indications that the lead is poorly written and tendentious, intended to push a definite point of view about communism. Statements such as, "Because of historical peculiarities, communism is commonly erroneously equated to Marxism–Leninism in mainstream usage" amount to lecturing readers, and need to be removed. I find statements such as, "The term 'Marxism–Leninism' refers to an ideology developed by Joseph Stalin which controversially claims adherence to Marxism and Leninism, yet is not accepted as a genuine development of Marxism by other kinds of Marxist" to be muddled; I also think they come across as semi-literate. I do not believe there is anything controversial about Marxism-Leninism claiming "adherence" to Leninism, and the assertion that "other kinds of Marxist" (whatever that means) do not accept Marxism-Leninism as a genuine development of Marxism is likewise too sweeping. WP:WEASEL is a relevant guideline. Looking at the history of the article, I see that there has been quite a bit of back and forth editing over these issues; an older version of the lead, visible here, and which seems better than the current version in some respects, states that, " There is no definite agreement between historians of about whether Stalin actually followed the principles of Marx and Lenin", but even though it was cited, that statement has now been removed. I'm not seeing a good reason for that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk)

Marxists don't need to be communists. Communism can be explained separately, without any controversy, from Marxism. You don't have to explain " the difference between Mardxism-Leninism, Marxism and other currents must be explained" to tell the reader what communism is; communism, as in the movement, is a general term used to define many ideologies/movement. Similar to socialism, communism is a vague. Communism means first of all one-party states ruled by communist parties and/or movements which try to overthrow the existing capitalist order. The debate is Marxism-Leninism Marxist has nothing to do with what communism is (its a completely separate question). Example; Yanis Varoufakis is a Marxist, but he's certainly not a communist... --TIAYN (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The article about communist state is not the article we're dealing with here. Zozs (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

My comments had nothing to do with communist state but about the nature of communism in general. I, as the clear majority here feel, believe your lead (and your work on this article in general) to be bad. I would therefore assume that, without controversy, that I (or any other) will write a new lead as soon as possible. There are a number of problems with the lead, such as using fringe sources as to claim that 'Marxism–Leninism' was invented by Stalin personally (which is of course wrong). You have two paragraphs stating why 'Marxism–Leninism' is not communism, which just proves how bad this lead is. One or two sentences are enough; all Marxist–Leninists are communists, not all communists are Marxist–Leninist... To respond to FreeKnowledgeCreator comments of the old lead being better, I disagree. The old lead was very Soviet centered. The Soviet Union is gone, and all they have left is China, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos and North Korea. The lead should be a brief introduction on what communism, the history of communism, and the present state of communism as a movement and not introduce the topic as if communism ended in 1991. --TIAYN (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

all Marxist–Leninists are communists, not all communists are Marxist–Leninist... To respond to FreeKnowledgeCreator comments of the old lead being better, I disagree. TIAYN, I really must insist that you have an inaccurate understanding of Marxism and communism if you believe that "all communists are Marxist–Leninist". If I might be so bold, this is a pretty basic misunderstanding. Bolder still, perhaps you should refrain from editing on topics that you do not have a basic grasp of. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@YeOldeGentleman: Next time read, I wrote "all Marxist–Leninists are communists, not all communists are Marxist–Leninist". I explicitly said that not all communists are Marxist–Leninist. I'd argue you have an inaccurate understanding of Marxism and communism if you think Marxism and communism have anything to do with this discussion. --TIAYN (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

TIAYN, who do you believe yourself to be to arbitrarily declare a majority before consensus has had a proper environment to form? You believe that the current lead must be universally wrong and a lead written by you or someone else would be agreed upon - but what if it is not? If it is down to simply "errors", then correct them. The problem is: you can't correct these "errors" because they're sourced facts, so you'd rather start over from zero and attempt that they are simply not being mentioned. You believe a lead rewrite would be uncontroversial? You're deluded. Zozs (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of where this discussion goes, there should at least be some sort of mention of the difference between Marxism–Leninism and communism which all sorts of people do erroneously equate to one another. I thought I'd just throw that in there (as if the lead ends up getting trimmed down, there should at least be a couple sentences exploring this very popular misconception). Dustin (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the article should make clear that communism and Marxism-Leninism are not one and the same thing, and I do understand where Zozs is coming from with his comments. Unfortunately, that does not alter the fact that the lead in its current form is both biased and poorly written. To respond to TIAYN: you've misunderstood me. I didn't mean to say that "the old lead" was better. I did not really have a single previous version of the article in mind; rather, all I meant was that some of the older versions were better in some ways. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not relevant "where I am coming from". It's also not "my comments", but rather a encyclopaedia description of the subject "Communism". Zozs (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether you want to discuss the article in a sensible way or not is up to you. By saying that I understand where you are coming from, what I mean is that I understand the reasons for your position on the lead. That is relevant, given that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. So please don't make silly comments. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Zozs: You're lead has been criticized since the very beginning. People have been criticizing it over and over again. If its something which is clear this is it. We all agree that the lead should take about communism, and not just one communist movement. But that the lead should use 90 percent of its content on this is to say the least strange.... You don't have to be a genius to understand that the book History for the IB Diploma: Communism in Crisis 1976–89 is not as good as Archie Brown's The Rise and Fall of Communism; I mean, come on, its a school book... And let me be honest Zozs, I don't trust you, and therefore I don't trust this source; " Г. Лисичкин (G. Lisichkin), Мифы и реальность, Новый мир (Novy Mir), 1989, № 3, p. 59"... You don't know Russian, and suddenly you are using a Russian source to defend yourself... The article even forgets that the term itself came in 1924, and many different names for it developed alongside Marxism–Leninism such as "Marksovo–Engelso–Leninism". What is clear, however, is that Stalin helped to define the concept in The Foundations of Leninism. @FreeKnowledgeCreator: But then we agree. --TIAYN (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

My lead was not constructively criticised - most of it was just pointless destruction and nonsensical arguments, mostly from people who don't know or understand how Wikipedia works. In contrast, how much would your lead get criticised? I don't know why we have to engage in all this speculation here. No piece of content is 100% accepted. "You don't even know Russian". See, TIAYN, there's your problem. You think you're God and you know everything about others, but here's a little hint: you don't. Let alone the fact that it takes minimum knowledge to be able to use multilanguage sources even if you don't know the target language. (and me saying this sentence doesn't mean that I don't know Russian) If you have a problem understanding a multilanguage source, the problem is yours, and pretty much every other source says the same thing. If you don't understand how the concept of Marxism-Leninism relates to Stalinism, which you clearly don't, then you obviously need to do some research. Zozs (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

What is clear, however, is that none of you have been able to suggest even one modification to do to the lead. All of you are just intent on "it's wrong, it's wrong, it's just WRONG!". This discredits your arguments. TIAYN specifically would like to rewrite the lead to in a biased manner give emphasis to what he would like to be there and what he wouldn't like to. Zozs (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate your editing on Leftism articles, I have to say that the lead for this article is too long, Zozs. Sorry to repeat:

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. […] Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article.

Well, I don't really have anything else to contribute to this discussion now. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This would be the lead as I would have it.

Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a socioeconomic system structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money, and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order. It is represented by a variety of schools of thought, which broadly include Marxism, anarchism and the political ideologies grouped around both. Because of historical peculiarities, communism is commonly erroneously equated to Marxism–Leninism in mainstream usage. States run under 'Marxism-Leninism' (such as the Soviet Union) did not represent what Marxists would term a 'communist society', nor did they claim to.

Shorn of all sources (they can be deployed in the main text), and I wouldn't even bother with that last sentence, since it can can be gone through in the main text. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEADLENGTH says 4 paragraphs for >30,000-character articles. We have 60,000 characters and 4 paragraphs. Zozs (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@YeOldeGentleman: You're version has several problems. First, communism is a movement. Secondly, "communism is commonly erroneously equated to Marxism–Leninism". Marxism–Leninism is indeed communism. The problem is that people forget other communist movements, such as left communism. @Zozs: What is clear is that you don't understand WP's rules, and cherry-pick which rules to follow as long as it helps you. You get away with you're behaviour since most people are as clueless as you when it comes to communism and Marxism–Leninism. --TIAYN (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Trust Is All You Need: 1) "Marxism–Leninism is indeed communism" Either you are actually guilty of the mistake I accused you of above, or you must phrase things more carefully. Do you mean, "a Marxist–Leninist is a communist, but the converse is not always true"? If so, can I ask you to clarify what your point is. The sentence Zozs (I presume) has written, "communism is commonly erroneously equated to Marxism–Leninism", points out that in the mainstream, the following is true: "a Marxist–Leninist is a communist, and the converse is always true". At most, this sentence requires a recapitulation for clarity's sake, but there's nothing incorrect about it.

2) As for "'communism as movement'… Well, communism is not the status quo in, say, Europe and North America, so there is surely a movement (a group of people, however small, who wish to see their goal(s) realised as part of, or in place of, a status quo that currently rejects, either wholly or in part, said goal(s); looking at it the other way, one does not talk about the liberal capitalist movement in Germany, for example, since the status quo in that country is already liberal capitalism) in these parts of the world that one could call communist, but you can easily distinguish the goals (communism) of a movement from the movement itself (people who want to see these goals realised). Communism, i.e. what this article should be about, is how a communist society, economy etc. would look if the communist movement were to become the status quo. The fact that there are communist movements throughout the world (there have been much larger ones, of course, in times past) is not relevant when it comes to explaining what communism is. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Zozs: Yes, OK. I accept what you say. I clearly didn't read the relevant WP article either far enough or carefully enough. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Zozs: If you are suggesting that because no one has yet proposed a perfect version of the lead, that discredits the claim that the version you are responsible for is no good, then you are sorely mistaken. I am glad to see that the failings of the current version have been widely recognized. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Just for lulz

I am perusing now some old Soviet stuff and cannot help but share with you a morsel of Leninist wisdom: "марксизм как тео­ретическая реальность" ("Marxism as a theoretical reality"). I am wondering where to add a section with this title: here or in the article Russian political humor. -M.Altenmann >t 17:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Now, the test, whether y'all are qualified to write articles about communism marxism and leninism:

• Which wisecrack of the 'fathers-founders' was the base of the above locution?-M.Altenmann >t 18:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but this talk page is about editing an encyclopaedia, not jokes or games. Zozs (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No. This page is about discussing the content of the topic of communism. About editing wikipedia, see wikipedia policies and guidelines, in particular this one. Many think that jokes and games are better for cooperation than calling fellow wikipedians "wise ass", POV pushing and fingerpointing. -M.Altenmann >t 23:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Zozs is quite right, my dear Altenmann. This is not the place for jokes or games. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As for my test question, which you obviously don't know and don't want to know the answer, here is the one, which is 100% important for understanding of Marxism, which is obviously lacking in wikipedia:

"...theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses."

And it was actually is in favor of the opinion of TIAYN about article content and I was going to elaborate on it. But now you pissed me off and I am no longer talking to y'all about communism due to your inability to carry out neutral discussion without name calling and mind reading. -M.Altenmann >t 23:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do you say "y'all" when only one person responded? Dustin (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually two. But I mean you, too. Many a time I gave myself a solemn promise not to delve into controversial topics, and every time I forget about it I got my ass kicked by both sides. (So I guess mine is a true NPOV :-) -M.Altenmann >t 00:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. And the original intention of this section was to elaborate on the importance of mutual cultural understanding of the opponent. At firs glance "theoretical reality" sounds like an idiotic oxymoron, but it makes sense when you understand where it came from . Therefore it is difficult to read trotskyites and the likes: they have their own worldview in which they live and they speak their bizarre language so that you have to have a separate wikipedia article for their every second phrase. -M.Altenmann >t 00:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Soviet Marxism–Leninism (as under Stalin and later) was known to emphasise superstructural elements more then material. Secondly, the material force which this quotes refers to is the proletariat and not the mode of production. "Therefore it is difficult to read trotskyites and the likes: they have their own worldview in which they live and they speak their bizarre language so that you have to have a separate wikipedia article for their every second phrase"—Trotskyism is a form of communism, and thats how it should be treated. --TIAYN (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization

It's my understanding that "communism" should have a lowercase c in reference to ideas/practices regarding communal ownership, but "Communism" should have an uppercase c when it deals with the ideology descended from Marx. As this article is mostly concerned with the latter case, I think the capitalization should be fixed when appropriate (for example, in "Communist parties"). Currently all references to "Communism" seem to be lowercase unless part of a specific name. Robotization (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

References

"Perceived" (Western) Imperialism

Hello,

when reading this article, I came across various (historically) inaccurate references in making mention of the 20th century anti-imperialist struggles undertaken by socialist or communist societies. The article naively implies that the anti-imperialist struggles of the 20th century were merely "perceiving" western imperialism, thus implying that the effects of Western (Capitalist) Imperialism did not actually exist in reality, and were merely "perceived" or "polarized" as such by those "foolish" communist anti-imperialists.

Basically, the article seems to imply that Western Capitalist-Imperialism did not truly exist in reality (i.e., apparently, the effects of imperialism cannot be documented empirically, which is obviously inaccurate and naively Western in hubris), and that it only existed merely in the minds or opinions of "communists" as a subjective worldview, being merely a matter of perception or popular opinion against the powerful West. These implications are completely inaccurate, and seemingly belie their own Western philosophical/theoretical free-market "inevitable push towards globalization" style of hubris and vulgarity. (citations are needed at the very least if kept unchanged on this topic.)

Barely any mention of communist anti-imperialist theory or philosophy are discussed in the article, and instead rely on a faux-historical reading of the "Cold War" conflict between the West's "capitalist-imperialism" (see: the push towards globalization) and communism's anti-imperialist protectionist socialism.

I'd suggest this be fixed. It's more than merely a Trot/Stalin debate, although admittedly a lot of foundational work on imperialism was done by Lenin. However, there are a lot of other historians that can be easily found on all sides outlining the reasoning behind communist anti-imperialism towards global capitalist market-expansionism.

Also, the issue of (market/economic) imperialism by the west has an underlying connection to national sovereignty in (communist) nation-states, with an argument for national self-determination (e.g., "westphalian" sovereignty) in all of the affairs within nation-states.

Plz fix when possible. THanks. Transnational Capitalists (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Transnational Capitalists: I agree. --TIAYN (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe "perceived" is merely a neutral description. It does not imply that imperialism didn't exist. The Cold War section begins by referring to empires. The wording later in that section is intended to sidestep the debate about whether America's intervention in other countries during the Cold War was imperialist. This is a Wikipedia article, not a leftist manifesto.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The majority of the intro is a Trotskyite/Anarchist rant about the USSR.

This page is a joke, just like the rest of Wikipedia is becoming these days. Seriously, the entire bottom two thirds of the intro content is dedicated to bashing Russia and the USSR as impure to the fundamentals of someone's utopian communist dogma. I suggest that the entire next two paragraphs after the paragraph on Marxism be removed entirely and replaced with a brief summary on the history of Communism and the Communist movement having taken place in France, Russia/USSR, central/western Europe resistance in WWII and after, China, and Asia. --Mundopopular (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. As previously discussed.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It's just the typical crap socialists spew trying to distance themselves from the disaster's of communism in Russia. The lead is too long anyway so yeah, it should be removed but good luck trying to do that. Tomh903 (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's of a piece with the crap capitalists spew to distance themselves from slavery, and all the horrors, exploitation, and misery that we see in the world today. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The point is not whether it's a valid political point of view. The point is it is not encyclopedic. This article should give an overview of Communism without taking sides.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

As many editors have observed, the article gives undue weight to a Trotskyist/anarchist/libertarian perspective. It's not good enough to argue that Communist states have their own article. That means this article has to be dominated by communist tendencies that never took power, that were less significant historically. We can't keep debating this for years. The article has to change.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Article subject

I was away from all these communist topics for 3-4 years, and now I see what a mess it turned into. The huge confusion in many article on C-topics is frequent lack of clear distinction between three quite separate topics: Communist society, Communist theory (which redirects here, but then WTH with the intro?), and what is called "Communism" in the West in reference to Communist states. (And if you remember other thing such as Communism Peak, then you would have noticed that somehow Communism (disambiguation) was lost from the top; restored.) Therefore please clean your brains and decide first what would be the subject of this article: society? theory? practice? Peak? Once the decision made, we may start shuffling things around, in proper corners. Otherwise any chat (like in the section above) is useless, since it looks like everybody speaksd of their own idea of communism. -M.Altenmann >t 03:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Altenmann: The article should present the movement. The history section should be devoted to the movements history. Then the theory of the different movements should be discussed. The article on communism should not be devoted to the societies of communism or the communist state; why? Because the liberalism, capitalism, social democracy, conservatism and the anarchism articles don't do that, so why should this? --TIAYN (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Still somebody is confused. or was it a tricky test for IQ? ("Liberalism, capitalism, social democracy, conservatism, anarchism - which word is out of place in this list?") Another problem with your answer is that none of our examples are defined as "movement". Therefore it will still be unclear what you had in mind if even if we correctly solve your IQ test I described above. Try again, but please read a bit before writing. You are on the right track, but clean your brains further. -M.Altenmann >t 16:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't ping me. The goal of my question is not to educate me, but to build a common consensus about the scope of the article. Therefore please, other editors, what are your opinions? -M.Altenmann >t 16:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Liberalism, social democracy, conservatism and anarchism are all movements. The movement develops theory, the movement takes power. Without the movement the rest would not be produced. --TIAYN (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Aha, you solved your IQ puzzle correctly :-). Now, what about other problem with your previous answer? Did you follow my advise to read before writing? In wikipedia articles, none of the 4 are defined as "movement" in the lede. Wikipedia is supposed to be consistent in the style for similar types of topics (that's why you picked your examples, right?) -M.Altenmann >t 17:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

One thing is good that you understand that "movement" and "theory" are different (although tightly related) topics. However you are a bit confused in the "egg vs. chicken" sense. -M.Altenmann >t 18:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think parallels really help. Communism is sui generis. We need an article about Communism. Excluding relevant topics from this article is not helpful, but of course we can link to related articles.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Communism as a word is sui generis. There are basically two genera usages if the term. One is in its "pristine" meaning, with all its fantasies and errors. Anther is a political slur in reference to what was going on within the Soviet Empire. Mixing them in one bowl is a source of the great confusion. -M.Altenmann >t 03:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose we merge Criticism of communism with communism the "criticism of communism" page is only 100 words as of 03/11/15 and would not burden the article communism by being merged into the criticism section here. if the criticism section gets large down the road we could consider splitting it then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Carmony (talk • contribs) 03:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - This small section and its links are helpful to readers. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

We can add those links here in Communism and help the reader out, no problem at all. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about. A merge actually sounds reasonable, and that article does not have any potential to be fully expanded into anything significant or of decent quality from the looks of it. Dustin (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support – All the information in that article could easily be integrated into the main "Communism" article with nothing lost. Dustin (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If you still think this is a good idea, start a move request. Dustin (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, it would probably help if you publicized this thread in some way. I have a feeling that most editors are just completely overlooking it. Dustin (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Lede, again

I further trimmed the lede. Please do not forget that the article lede is the article summary, and therefore please don't add your own understanding of Communism into it. -M.Altenmann >t 21:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I also clarified the garbled definition of the term: there is Communism as a hypothetical society, and Communism as a school of thought, which further encompasses several things. Of course, my English is not the best, improvements are welcome. -M.Altenmann >t 21:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Who the heck is Г. Лисичкин, references to whom suddenly appeared in wikipedia articles around the subject? If he is notable, there should be a wikipedia article. If not, why he is cited? -M.Altenmann >t 17:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC) This is the style of his writing (when describing the term "Marxism-Leninism"):

Одиннадцать залпов было выпущено по учению Ленина, причем разрывными пулями. Разрывались его черты на части, склеивались по нужной Сталину логике, с добавкой компонентов особого свойства, и на вновь созданном продукте ставилось не авторское клеймо - сталинизм, а фальшивый ярлык, утверждавший, что он - продукт этот - создан великими мастерами"

It does not strike me as scholarship, but rather as a typical attempt of a neocommunist to put all blame on Stalin: Lenin's theory was real good, but this "bastard highlander" screwed it up big time. -M.Altenmann >t 19:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There are several scholars, and several communists, marxists etc, who believe that Stalin distorted communism; which of course is easily verifiable since he killed 80-90 percent of the central party leadership, the party leaderships in Ukraine, Kazakhstan etc (the idea that Stalin had to follow does not make sense, I'd argue, since you didn't see Lenin go around and order the deaths of every conceivable communist in the country with a different view). This is not "typical attempt of a neocommunist to put all blame on Stalin", but a mainstream view held by several scholars, but its not the only view (as Zozs makes it out to be). For every Stephen Kotkin (who views Stalin as an ideological fanatic) there is a Mikhail Gorbachev (who stated Stalin created an adminstrative-bureucratic totalitarian system, or something like that, and deformed socialism). The Communist Party of China has condemned him for the "bastardization of Leninism" and accused him of being the main reason for the USSR's dissolution. Instead of arbitrary saying its neocommunist nonsense, and acting like a wise ass, read about it. Both you and Zozs don't seem to get the point; instead of pressing one view, add all views. The three first paragraphs should be structured as this; first paragraph, short introduction to what communism (what its aim are) is as a movement and as a system, second paragraph should be about history of the movement, the third about description of its political and economic system and the fourth should mention that there exist several interpretation of what communism was and is (you have M-Ls, Maoists, the Chinese, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cubans, Trotskyists, left communists, council communists, Titoists, Hoxhaism, Prachanda Path, eurocommunism etc etc etc etc ... None of these interperation of communism are more or less communist; they are communist, and the article should explain all of them. Zozs has censored this page and removed the section devoted to "Juche"—an ideology which now is officially independent from M–L according to North Korean state media, but which was referred to until the 6th WPK Congress as a M–L ideology for Korean circumstances. --TIAYN (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

re "you and Zozs don't seem to get the point" - no, you don't get the point: the manner this guy Lisichkin writes is a rabid name calling, in best traditions of political dog fights (in best traditions Leninism, if you read original Lenin), therefore I tend to dismiss this writer as a reputable scholar, unless you provide me with his credentials . I don't deny that Stalin twisted Marxism to his likes, but this is not the issue I am raising. If it is a "mainstream view held by several scholars", then please provide references from mainstream scholars. Yes, this style of writing I cited I will insist to be nonsense, be in neocommunist or anticommunist. The rest of your text is irrelevant Nobody argues that there are many flavors of communism, and the article with generic title "Communism" must describe all of them, and the intro must be a summary of the article.

re "acting like wise ass", here are two points. First, I would suggest you to be civilised and not behave like Lenin in political disputes: address arguments, not persons. Second point, in addition to Maoists, there are a whole huge category of people with an opinion that "good gramps Lenin" was not much better than Stalin; he only had short time, therefore neocommunists (btw I was not a smart ass and did not use the term "neocommunist nonsense") trying to whitewash Lenin by putting all blame on Stalin are not better than neoStalinists who put all blame of Krushchew and Gorbachov who destroyed the great state.

Now, back to my original question: is this 'G. Lisichkin a reputable reference or not?' -M.Altenmann >t 23:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Altenmann: (I know I wasn't supposed to tag you, but since you formally left the conversation below I'm trying to get you back... sorry for that). I agree with you on Lisichkin, its a bad source (I even mentioned it before you did). The problem with Zozs, the problem with ideological articles in general here on WP is this; people say communism is this or this, but can't be this and this, and that is nonsense and shouldn't be included. People seemed to more biased then normal when discussing communism. This article, and 'we both agree, is shit. Its been shit for most of its lifetime it seems, but now its gotten worse I'd argue.. re "acting like wise ass", you are writing in a tone which suggest that you know more about this topic then us. Its how I interpreted it; I'm not a native language speaker so I might be wrong, buts that how I interpreted several of you're posts.

To my last point; again this is biased, the are more people then just communists who view Lenin as a good guy. But let's stop this discussion, we have other matters to attend to, right? I'm an asshole, you're an asshole, everyone on WP is an asshole—I don't care. We didn't begin to edit on Wikipedia because we didn't want to come into contact with assholes, we began editing WP to improve it. Let's improve it together. And yes, I'm an asshole, but let's get over this and focus on the article instead of bickering and discussing Marxist theory (which doesn't help; Communists, social democrats, anarchists, capitalists can all be Marxists...), OK? I'm stilling favoring a lead organized around four paragraphs;

• (1) short definition of what communism the movement is,
• (2) history
• (3) definition of communist political system and remaining communist countries, and
• (4) short summary on different forms of communism and maybe even a sentence or two about communism' relationship to Marxism.

Do you have any suggestions on how we should structure the lead? If so, please state below. 'If I act less like less of a jackass I think we can work something out. --TIAYN (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(1) Sure. (2) No, history does not belong in the lead. (3) That belongs in communist state not communism. (4) Communism's relationship to Marxism looks much more important than anything else you mentioned. Zozs (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

To go back to the original query, I think that G Lisichkin is OK as an occasional reference, but we need broader citations. I'm also concerned about the weight given to the IB high school textbook.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)