Talk:Anti-communism/Archive 1

About the anti-communist statesmen...

That list needs some clarification. Suharto is called a dictator, which he is of course, but then Fulgencia Batista is simply called a "dictator" (of Cuba). I decided to call all dictators by what they are. Red Star

Old discussion

There is a 'minor' mistake in describing the case of Van Jones in the US government - he was NOT "accused" of being a communist He declared HIMSELF a communist, and did not retract his beliefs while in the US Gov't either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.124.202 (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this strongly biased! There was a comparision between Nazism and Communism. That is not correct at all. So I am removing it.

Tell me if i'm wrong, but this article is to describe what anti-communism is, not to spread anti-communism bull****. Please, respect other people's principles. --Luis Oliveira

I hardly see how anti communism is bull****... please respect my principles. communist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.229.51 (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the Nazis murdered 11 million in the holocaust, but the Communists in their holocausts: The Ukrainian famine, Russian Civil War, Stalin's Purges, The Great Leap Forward, Hundred Flowers Program, The Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot, etc., murdered close to 100 million people. Not bad for a

progressive ideology. It's little wonder the Communist chose red as their color: their hands are stained with the blood of millions.--146.145.70.200 19:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply: What you are describing are exagerations purely influenced by American (is it?) propaganda. You did not experience any of these things, and since no firm information is given about internal conficts in communism, anti-communist historians then exagerate everything. Nazism is strongly caused when people like you hate communism. It is also not very good to make metaphores of politcal colors by the way. I could similarly say that America chose red white and blue because they first bomb and shoot people (red blood) , and give them cancer so they turn pale (white), then finally water (blue) board them. Now doesn't that sound stupid? It's the same kind of argument that your making.[reply]

I agree. We should be explaining what anti-communism is, not endorsing it. --Robert Merkel

And it's getting much more balanced, congrats to the wikipedia! --Luis Oliveira

There is no bias in reporting that anti-communists oppose communism or that they feel it is similar to fascism. The article does not state that communism is fascist; rather, that in the opinion of anti-communists there is a similarity.

Although it is "obvious" to me that Communism is the worst evil the world has known, I realize that many if not most people do not share this view. Nonetheless, anti-communism does exist and should be examined by the Wikipedia. Mistakes in anti-communism or critiques of anti-communism should also be included. -- Ed Poor]

Sorry then. Perhaps it is because english is not my first language but the way you said it initially didn't look like a report... -- Luis Oliveira

Ed, Communists usually linked everything they don't like to fascism too. Should that be mentioned in every article? szopen

No, not every article. But if there are historical instances of Communist exponents, parties, or governments labeling as "fascist" things they merely dislike, perhaps one or two examples may be provided. Sort of as an example of Communist propaganda. But let us carefully distinguish between accurate (if hypocritical) Communist criticism of Hitler and Mussolini's fascism and the use of the label "fascist" merely as a slur.

If the term "fascist" was indeed used by Communists to mean "any system or person they dislike" we ought to note this. Nonetheless, anti-communists have pointed out similarities between communism and fascism: state socialism, ruthless suppression of opposition, concentration camps . . .

Of course, if these comparisons are exaggerated or contrived, surely supporters of Communism (or critics of anti-communism) have objected to these comparisons and given reasons for their objections. These objections should be included in the article. Ed Poor

The better issue must be indicating the huge differences between Communism and Stalinism. As it is Stalinism that was the government system in Russia for 70 or so years not Communism.

Perhaps you mean between ideal communism or ideal Communistic practice and Stalinism -- as it was, Stalinism was Stalin's version of Communism. A major part of anti-communism is its criticism of Communism as practiced by Stalin, Mao and so on. Those leaders (dictators?) showed any signs of ever relinquishing power, which would seem to retard the predicted "withering away" of the socialist state into (true) communisim.

Correction: Stalinism was Stalin's version of Socialism, not Communism. And the socialist state is not supposed to be a dictatorship that withers away when the dictator decides to relinquish power. The socialist state is supposed to be democratic in the first place, and it is supposed to "wither away" as representative democracy slowly turns into direct democracy.

I have removed the following, until they can be reworked:

Communism's theoretical basis is dialectical materialism, which is predicated on the assumption that there is no God and that spirit is generated by matter. For religious believers, communism's atheism is anathema.

The other central part of Karl Marx's communist theory is historical materialism, which states that human society is evolving, and that the next step after capitalism is socialism, and in the end communism. Anti-communists reject the entire concept of historical materialism, or at least do not belive that socialism and communism must follow after capitalism.

Here is why I removed them: they were under the section "theoretical criticisms" yet they are neither criticisms nor are they theoretical. The sum effect of these two points is to say that "Some people disagree with claim a, others disagree with claim b." But disagreement is not the same thing as critique -- I mean, simply to say "I do not agree with you" is not very meaningful. Why do you disagree with me? Why do you think I am wrong?

As a matter of fact, there were some "theoretical criticisms" that tried to do this (like, poor people do get richer). I happen to disagree with that criticism because I think it misrepresents communist analysis, but at least it is recognizable as a theoretical critique.

I would have no objection to these points being returned to the article, if they were posed not merely as saying "here are things communists claim that some people do not accept" but rather as truly theorized critiques. I would expect an argument that explains and accounts for the logical and empirical problems with the communist claims, and that present real logical or empirical arguments for the counter claims. SR

I would add that these definitions of dialectical materialism and historical materialism are simply inaccurate. DH

The two paragraphs are rather "critisisms of communist theory" than "theoretical critisms of communism". (Heh, _almost_ beyond my level of English comprehension here.) The point is, if you disagree with one of these foundations for communism, the whole communist theory falls apart (for you). There should be a place for these paragraphs in the article, with some careful rewording. --Guppie

The details of meaty philosophical objections to communism should go in an appropriately-named article--not in an article titled "anti-communism"--unless we plan to have them in both places. Certainly we shouldn't plan to present the many critiques of communism under this title, because many of them are not part and parcel of the attitude and historical movement, "anti-communism," but are very important critiques nonetheless. --Larry_Sanger, stating the obvious as usual :-(

Such levels of repression are of course not unique to communist regimes, and western powers have their own record of denial of political or labour rights, racism, colonial oppression and violence, support for governments which presided over mass killings, torture and detention of political opponents, or engagement with regimes (usually on the basis of their shared anti-communism) which practised genocide or racial segregation.

That's bullshit. Such level of represion IS unique to communist regimes. No other regime made such a horrible democides in own countries as Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, North Corea and other communist countries. Even Nazis, which are often said to be "as bad" as Communists did little killing of own citizens. That was at least an order of magnitude of difference. --User:Taw

Oh yes, thank you for reminding me about Cambodia, where the west backed the Khmer Rouge after they'd been booted out by the Vietnamese. I'm glad to hear you find the Nazis so preferable. These little clarifications do so jolly things along. User:David Parker.

If you accept the premise that the Jews in Germany were not entitled to German citizenship, Taw may be technicaly correct. Eclecticology

I think that I exorcised the "bullshit" from the paragraph. --maveric149

If you classify democides according to the percentage of deaths out of the total population (as opposed to the raw body counts), then you will be surprised to see that only 2 communist regimes score in the top 25. Namely those of Stalin and Pol Pot (see this article and scroll down to the second statistic: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1900.htm). Furthermore, I could point out that the only people who accepted Pol Pot's regime as "communist" were his followers (keep in mind that he was overthrown by the Vietnamese Communists), so his crimes cannot be reasonably attributed to Communism. In the end, we are left with Stalin as the only communist in the top 25. But if we accept Trotskyist objections to Stalinism, then Stalin also flies out the window... In conclusion, be more careful when you blame various crimes on various ideas, principles or ideologies. Unless the person who commited the crimes was also the person who created the ideology (as in the case of Hitler and his Mein Kampf), it is unjust to blame the actions of one madman on a group consisting of millions of people (especially when many of those people actually opposed him). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu

Most of this material belongs into communism, under a heading 'criticsm and objections' (or into a new article "criticism of communism"). If I go to an encyclopedia article about anti-communism, I expect to find McCarthyism, Reagan's political philososphy, the domino theory leading to the Vietnam war, Western support of the Contras in Nicaragua and Savimbi in Angola etc. etc.

"Anti-communism", in common usage, is not a philosophical criticsm of communism. It denotes a special set of policies of the Western countries in the second half of the 20th century directed against socialist countries and the spread of communism in general. AxelBoldt

I agree. Anti-communists will often go to great lengths to prove that understanding communism is not a pre-requisite to being anti-communist. Eclecticology
Me, too. Otherwise, there will be too much duplication. My favorite anti-communist textbook, "Communism: Critque and Counterproposal" by Sung Han Lee, devotes nearly half its space to explaining Marxist-Leninist theory. Once a person has a clear understanding of a typical communist point, it's generally pretty easy for them to see what's wrong with it. But criticizing what one does not understand leads nowhere. User:Ed Poor
This is absolutely correct. This article could really use a total reworking to make it an article about anticommunism and that only, with everything else moved to more appropriate articles or deleted (I think there's a significant amount of garbage in the article). DH

So, what did Moon say in November 1987, when it became clear that Soviet communism had lasted more than 70 years? (You're giving him credit for a prediction, while glossing over the specifics he got wrong). Vicki Rosenzweig

Does it help the cause of anti-communists to be associated with the Moonies? Eclecticology

I think that in 1985, 2 years before the precise "deadline" you seem to have poisited, he told Morton Kaplan to declare the End of Communism (which he reluctantly did). And I think that during the three or four year period from Nov 1987 to Dec 1990 (or Dec 1991) Soviet Communism pretty much disintegrated, right on schedule. I myself was a staff member of a workshop teaching Unificationist religious ideas in the former Soviet Socialist Republic of Lithuania in June 1992. Give me a break, his prediction was pretty close! Ed Poor 11:32 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)

"Many anti-communists also regard the lack of property rights and economic freedom under communism as taking away fundamental human rights": calling it "economic freedom" as if it were a given that everyone would accept that "economic freedom" is part of the capitalist system is hardly NPOV. This should be worked somehow to say that the anti-communists believe that capitalism gives "economic freedom" and one of the reasons the anti-communists oppose communism is that communism represses this economic freedom. --Daniel C. Boyer

" Another one is Stanislaw Lem, who, being once very bored, took book with statistics about Soviet Union, some course about Basic Economy, put correct numbers into few equation and decided that USSR would fall some in late 1980s."

The note accompanying the addition of this badly-phrased bit (presumably the person adding it is not a native English speaker) said "one anecdote says" this. -- Jake 04:18, 2003 Aug 20 (UTC)

i was researching for an essay and strolled upon this site and i have something to say: all u poor commies out there...GIVE IT UP!!!!!! any commy country that has ever succeeded has done so by scaring its population out of ever disagreeing with the state. the only commy gov'ts alive today are that of brutal dictatorships. does a person living in a commy country enjoy amounting to nothing??? if communism is so good then how come the whole world isnt communist?? oh thats right, because communism is load of sh*t. hell, im from canada and my gov't is too far left for my liking. so as far as this anti-commy stuff goes, i would really like to see it spread and tell the whole world just how bad of an idea it is. now, i should get back to my essay. the topic?? "should gov'ts today play a greater role in the operation of their economies?" my answer?? HELLS NO!

What is up with all these communists here? Let me just say i agree with the guy who wrote above me. i also think that it is quite pointless arguing with a communist. It can't be won because everything as legitimate as everything else to a commie. the nuke is as legitimate as the businessman, genocide is as legitimate as democracy, Homo's are as legitimate as hetrosexuals and so on. this is ridiculous. they need to accept that superiority is a fact in life. the united states is a better country than say, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos or north Korea. that is a fact. a communist will argue that they are equal. BULLSHIT.if i don't agree with them im racist. that is their argument. Because i don't believe in multiculturalism or whatever i am a racist. you can't win with them. there is no right or wrong opinion (besides from riht wing views obviously). so just ignore them and like most annoying insects, hope they go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.229.51 (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also believe that the peoples of Europe should have "given up" on the ideals of Democracy after Napoleon perverted the principles of the French Revolution? If not, then why do you believe that the peoples of the world should give up on the ideals of Communism after Stalin perverted the principles of the Russian Revolution? Communism is only an extension of Democracy (or, as Marx would say, "Communism is the logical conclusion of Democracy").

And the system used in the countries you're talking about is not Communism - no communist leader ever claimed to have actually reached Communism. They claim to be on the way towards Communism, and they claim that their current system is Socialism. But then again, they also claim that their countries are wonderful democratic paradises. So if you believe that the Soviet Union (for example) was truly "communist" or "socialist", then you'd better also believe that the People's Democratic Republic of Korea is "democratic".

-- Mihnea Tudoreanu

"Communism is only an extension of Democracy"? I guess that's why pretty much every Communist revolution has resulted in the complete opposite of a democracy. Just bad luck. Wrong guys in charge. Stalinist, not Communist. Nothin' to do with it. Nada. They all misread Marx. Mmmhmm.

I have noted a double standard in regards to criticism of communism and criticism of religion. When someone says "Christians in the Crusades murdered x number of people", the anticommunist rushes to defend Christianity, saying "but they weren't true Christians! Christianity teaches love!" but when communism comes up as the discussion topic, the anticommunist screams "I don't give a damn about what Marxism teaches, communists have killed x number of people!"

Hmmm. [[User:DO'Neil|DO'Иeil]] 08:24, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

It is true that certain interpretations of religion can lead one to believe that doing fanatical things is OK in the eyes of their god. However, (generally) for Christianity this no longer happens, and most agree that Jesus' messages do not call for bloody conversion.

Contrast that with Communist countries, which have always been dictatorships. In addition, people may conclude that while Marx may have had noble intentions, they are impossible to realistically achieve. So while all the historical Communist states may not have been "truly" communist, there's debate about whether it's even possible to have a classless, peaceful communist democracy (I'm not even sure if Marx wanted a democracy -- he talks about the government eventually losing all form, and I don't really get what he means,) and whether the results of various Communist revolutions are just logical, human outcomes.

It's proven that Christianity doesn't necessarily lead to war and conflict, but so far we haven't seen the wonderful communist society Marx predicted. Trey Stone 05:32, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See Libertarian Socialism. Apparently they want anarchy, or at least want to pretend they want anarchy, or some such. Sam [Spade] 05:37, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Godless communists

How does dialectical materialism rely on the fact that there isn't a god? If God made the world and humans then gave us free will, couldn't dialectical materialism be slotted in?

Slizor

No responses on the subject so I'm removing the God bit.

Slizor Talk 00:58, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)

You are correct. Dialectical materialism doesn't rely on the idea that God doesn't exist. It relies on the idea that God does not have an active influence in contemporary human history.

In other words, what Marxism opposes are things like the Divine Right of Kings, which are no longer an issue today but which were still hotly disputed 150 years ago, when Marxism was first invented.

Marxism is no more "atheist" than any modern secular ideology.

-- Mihnea Tudoreanu

"opiate of the masses" anyone? WTF are you talking about, "no more atheist"? Go study Pol Pot, please. Sam [Spade] 05:37, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade- Pol Pot also forbade schooling, health care, and was a racist nationalist who killed ethnic Chinese and Vietnamese in Cambodia and invaded another socialist nation. Doesn't sound very Marxist to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.148.42 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classic well-poisoning tactics (poisoning both the communist well and the atheist well at the same time, well done!). And clearly you don't understand what Marx meant. "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people"

Exile 22:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good job exile. You missed the ad hominium fallacy though.

World Anti-Communist League

Article should probably have some reference to the [1] AndyL 04:10, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See also this article AndyL 04:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

anti-communist repression

I have removed the paragraph which outlines Ann Coulter's views on Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Clearly anyone who feels that taking the position of an unhinged, partisan, ultra-right newspaper columnist constitutes NPOV is either ignorant or deluded. They don't belong on this excellent resource.

I tend to think of Ann Coulter as the equivelent of Michael Moore. They both remind me of Goebbels. ;) Sam [Spade] 21:22, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You think Michael Moore, a social-democrat at best, is the equivalent of Ann Coulter, a border-like Nazi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosfeld (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who's a "border-like Nazi" they are both purveyors of propaganda. And Michael Moore's tactics are completely unethical for someone claiming to make documentaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.173.5 (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article

' A useful comparison would be the Catholic Church's Inquisition which is generally seen as a fundamental error in the history of the church. '

I don't see this sentence fitting in well where its at. Is this ment to suggest that past crimes of the catholic church somehow excuse the perpetual crimes of communism? I don't follow the reasoning. Sam [Spade] 22:04, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it's fine to leave that in there as long as it's clear that it's a point that would likely be used on the pro-communist side. Obviously one can find problems with the analogy but I already addressed that when I added the "totalitarian by nature" bit to the anti-communist side of the argument.

Agreed. Sam [Spade] 06:34, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can someone unprotect this page? Trey Stone 05:18, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I recommend asking elsewhere, I doubt they care enough about the article to read the talk. Sam [Spade] 05:29, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm a n00b so I don't know where to ask. On a sysop's user page? Trey Stone 04:55, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Try here looking here, or the talk page, etc... Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Sam [Spade] 05:17, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Notable Anti-Communists

This section needs some major rearranging. The persons mentioned should be categorized and listed as anti-communist political and military leaders, dissidents, economists etc. Furthermore, what is Fulgencio Batista doing on this list? :-)

I'll probably do some editing on this section in the near future. - Ivan M.

Batista was an anticommunist. During his rule in the 1950s, the Communist Party was illegal, and Cuba had no diplomatic relations with any of the communist countries.

This section should be either deleted or re-named and merged with the Anit-communist section. "Noble" is a completley ambiguous term and is wide open to interpretation. Wikipedia does not deal in opinions-paul@wiki

Some Additions to the Page

In the sentence:

[C]ommunist governments have been accused of creating a new ruling class (called by Russians the nomenklatura) with privileges parallel to those in the overthrown "capitalist" societies.

I changed "privileges parallel to those in the overthrown 'capitalist' societies" to "powers and privileges far greater than those previously enjoyed by the upper classess in the pre-revolutionary regimes.". I am aware that some might find this claim per se disputable, however it is not stated as a fact, but as a statement of one side in the dispute (to which most, if not all anti-communists will certainly subscribe).

Furthermore, the following very controversial statment was listed as an undisputed fact:

Also, they often point to cases such as Cuba, whose economic performance is actually better than that of similar neighboring countries (Cuba is ahead of most of its Latin American neighbors, but far behind the United States.)

This might have been true in the Cold War years, thanks to the rich Soviet subsidies, but it is definitely not true today (not undisputedly true, at any case). I've changed this statement to a more neutral form and somewhat expanded the anti-communist argument in this case.

Other changes I made are adding some further anti-communist arguments. While some of them are controversial, I was careful to present them only as beliefs held by anti-communists, not as undisputed truth.

I also moved the sentence about the alternative meaning of the term "anti-communism" to the first paragraph in the page. There is not much point in placing such a piece of information after an in-depth article about the primary meaning.

Also, please excuse my accidental submitting of the page in the middle of my work! - Ivan M.

Suharto

It's quite ashtonish to notice that there is nothing in this page about one of the worst anticommunist repression: 1.000.000 people killed (alleged communists) by Suharto in Indonesia. This is a fact that no serious historician denies. A page about anticommunism is not NPOV without this. I think that it should be stressed more strongly the difference between critics at communists regimes in the name of liberalism, democracy or anarchism and the oppurtunistic usage of anticommunism for power struggles between the West and the East (or, for example in my country, Italy, for internal power struggles) or, worst of all, for the repression of political enemies. There is a huge difference between, for example, George Orwell crititics of the Soviet Union and senator Macarthy. I even think that some critics of the SU wouldn't like to be called anticommunists, because this world often implies a cold-war approach or an hobstility against socialism in general! Furthermore, I would like to remember that talking of communism in general is not very productive, as it's not productive to consider Marx ideas necessarly related to communism (in fact, most of the socialist parties of europe where in the first period marxist, reformists included). Communism in democratic countries often does not opposes democracy (see eurocommunism). Russia and China where of course countries in which communists have perpetrated large crimes, but do not forget that both of them have never been democratic countries before (and don't tell me that Putin now is a democrat!), they have a long tradiction of authoritarism. I see absurd to compare communism to nazism, the second was a particular european regime which lasted for a period relatively short, communism is a large and complex phaenoman. juliet.p from Italy

New introduction and section headings

I propose the following introduction with section headings:

Opposition to communism arises from a number of sources. As a system which proposes to overthrow the social and political order by means of revolution, communism is opposed by those who are in power, both in capitalist and other vulnerable political and economic systems, as well as those who simply enjoy the benefits of the existing system such as religious believers. After a successful communist revolution such as the October Revolution which resulted in the establishment of the Soviet Union a new breed of opposition arose, those who are dispossessed of their property, power and privilege, reactionaries. This came to include opposition political parties, religious believers and supporters of democracy as those elements were suppressed by the new state. Later, as the situation developed and independent farmers, hostile ethnic groups, writers and artists and other elements were suppressed, opposition widened. As information spread regarding conditions within the Soviet Union opposition grew among elements analogous to those suppressed within the Soviet Union. This was exacerbated by political organizing carried on by communist parties allied with the Comintern which impacted socialist political parties and labor unions. Following the Soviet victory in World War II and the occupation of Eastern Europe anti-communism became, under Truman, the policy of the United States during the Cold War. During the second half of the Twentieth Century within the Soviet bloc, especially in Eastern Europe and among ethnic groups other then Russian within the Soviet Union opposition grew strong and culminated in the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. This opposition continues to be strong both in Eastern Europe, former parts of the Soviet Union and in Russia itself.

==Opposition by capitalists== ==Opposition by feudal and other backward elements== ==Opposition by reactionaries and other displaced elements== ==External opposition== ==Cold war opposition== ==Democratic and intellectual opposition== ==Post-Soviet opposition==

This proposition is rather incomplete as pointed out above in the section "Suharto", but substantially expands the scope of the article. 16:03, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

The edits that you propose are utterly off the NPOV. Just look at some of your statements:

(1) Capitalism is "vulnerable" to a communist revolution?! This must be a joke. In the most capitalist nations in the world, such as the US, popular support for communism has been virtually non-existent (despite the substantial support for it among the intellectuals).

One main thread of anti-communism comes from capitalists (and sympathetic intellectuals who support capitalism). That is the point of the section. Rulers of feudal or undeveloped oligarchal systems, which are vulnerable, also oppose communism Fred Bauder 23:52, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Your writing clearly states "capitalism and other vulnerable... systems".

(2) Calling opponents of communism "reactionaries", as if it was a standard, generally accepted category, rather than a communist ideological concoction used to slander millions of innocent victims, is no less offensive than it would be to use Nazi propaganda terms such as "Untermensch" or "Jewish element" in an article that deals with the WW2 or the Holocaust.

Reactionaries are those displaced by communist revolution, for example Russian aristocrats or orthodox churchmen or businessmen whose businesses have been expropriated. It is not a slander, just a generally used English word which refers to such people. Fred Bauder 23:52, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

It is a "generally used English word" as much as "Untermensch" is a generally used German word. Outside of the Marxist ideological context, it is virtually devoid of meaning. And it was used by the commies as a slader against millions of their victims, most of whom, by the way, did not belong to the categories you mentioned.

(3) Same goes for the "backward elements". There is no way that using such terms loaded with commie ideology as if they were standard English can pass for a NPOV.

Backward elements are for, example, slave owners, or subsistance farmers. Fred Bauder 23:52, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

In the commie political discourse, they are -- just like the Slavs are Untermenschen in the Nazi political discourse. However, outside of the corresponding totalitarian ideological contexts, these terms are considered neither standard nor appropriate.

(4) You assume that the only opponents of communism are the "class enemies", people who fear for the unjust privileges that they (supposedly) enjoy under the capitalist system. You completely ignore the intellectual opposition to communism, from the classical liberals and anarchists of Marx's own day, who already at that time clearly saw the totalitarian nature of his ideas, to the neoclassical and Austrian economists, who later demolished Marxist economics, to the countless anti-communist intelectuals of the 20th century.

- Ivan M.

If I have ignored any elements such as you suggest they should be included. Fred Bauder 23:52, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

If you are unaware of these "elements" (which are actually the very substance of the matter), you shouldn't consider yourself qualified to write an encyclopedia article on the subject. - Ivan M.

I think you need to look at the existing article, which seems to view anti-communism as mainly cooked up by cold war opponents and consider how we might improve it. My ability to single-handedly write an encyclopedia article is not the question. The question is whether by organizing it better we (including you) can write a better article. Fred Bauder 19:09, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

99.13.118.232 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)== Richard NIXON!??! ==[reply]

What's Richard Nixon doing on the list!? Or for that matter, JFK? Or Ronald Reagan, who became a personal friend of Gorbachev?

Nixon: took maximum advantage of the Sino-Soviet Split, arguably one of the most significant events in beating the Soviets.
JKF: Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis
Ronald Reagan: "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall", Grenada, SDI & massive arms buildup, widely despised by the left for his "reckless" and overly ideological anti-communism

—thames 19:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nixon: Paris 'Peace' Accords which sold out South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia; recognized the People's Republic of China; SALT I; appointed a Soviet agent as his National Security Advisor (read Henry Kissinger: Soviet Agent by Frank Cappell and Kissinger on the Couch by Phyllis Schlafley and Chester Ward), massively increased trade with the Soviet Union

JFK: Canceled air support for the Bay of Pigs fighters, forced anticommunist Prince Boun Oum to accept a coalition government in Laos, supported the UN's war against Katanga (while refusing to support Moise Tshombe); read, for example, The Fearful Master by G. Edward Griffin

Ronald Reagan: Betrayed steadfast anticommunists such as Ferdinand Marcos and Alfredo Stroessner, continued Carter's policies toward Red China, further increased trade with the Soviets

JFK: The use of the Reagan photo with Thatcher and the JFK photo with "Berliner" quote is visually rhetorical in that it is using the images as an ideological instrument to suggest that JFK made laughable errors while Reagan was a diplomat. Where's the neutrality?

Because

Nixon was a nobtle Anti Communist he was a vocal critic of Communism and Supported Joe McCarthy

JFK was also a crtic of Communism and he did try to kill Castro and faced down the Soviets in Cuba

Reagan was a hardline anti-communist he gave many speechs against Communism and he helped anti-communists in other nations

Your views are not based in fact so please leave them out of wikipedia

Zbigniew Brzezinski was no anticommunist

Read his book, Between Two Ages, in which he praises Marxism as "the greatest insight into contemporary reality." Moreover, in a 1961 issue of Foreign Affairs, he advocated foreign aid to the communist countries of Eastern Europe. Also, look at the Carter Administration's foreign policy, which saw the fall of several anticommunists (Smith, Somoza, the Shah). Can you really claim Brzezinski was an anticommunist?

You read "Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century", "Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy", "The Permanent Purge: Politics in Soviet Totalitarianism", and "Game Plan: A Geostrategic Framework for the Conduct of the U.S.-Soviet Contest." The man was one of the foremost Cold-War hawks. He certainly did advocate aid to Eastern European countries, not to help the Soviets, but to wean the populations away from the Soviets--we consolidated Western Europe with Marshall Plan aid, and we might have done the same with Eastern Europe. Just because you don't understand his reasoning, or may disagree with his reasoning, does not make him pro-communism. Carter lost Iran, Brzezinski didn't. Read "Power and Principle"--Brzezinski was willing to send the U.S. army to back the Shah, Carter countermanded his own order to deploy U.S. troops to Iran. —thames 19:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reading list. Btw, thanks for not flaming, either. Many people I've met online have flamed over topics like this.

No prob. I apologize for any heated remarks. People who flame over things usually don't have the full picture, and are blowing up individual events taken out of context and misconstruing them. Certainly there is room for criticism of Brzezinski and Carter. —thames 21:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just my analysis, but I'd venture that Brzezinski's opposition to the USSR had more to do with Russophobia than anti-communism. Mattm1138 02:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text

For this last reason the word is sometimes used with a negative meaning to define an opposition to communism schematic and excessive, which doesn't take in consideration the differences between various communist regimes and movements and it is instrumentally used as a political weapon in the clash between West and East. This bias against anticommunism is even due to the opportunistic use of anticommunism made by some authoritarian regimes to persecute dissidents of any political colour.

I don't think this is needed in the intro. If you think it is of some value, please find a way to work it into the criticisms section. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 14:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I've done is to eliminate the declaration that "a large segment of American society has seen wages decline in real terms" since 1980. I don't think the facts bear that out: certainly no income quintile has seen any period of steady decline since then. The need to make such an edit highlights this article's fundamental problem: that it is essentially a nebulous debate on the merit of the Communist system. It seems laughably disorganized to saturate the "Objections to Communist Theory" section with phrases like "Communists reply" and "Communists also argue," when whole sections are devoted to the Communist response later on.
In the end, a defense (or even criticism) of Communism hardly seems appropriate to this article at all. I agree with AxelBoldt's assertion that an article on anti-Communism should have largely historical content: the Whites of Russia and counterrevolutionaries in other Communist countries; the Red Scare; McCarthy, Nixon and HUAC, and Whittaker Chambers; Lech Walesa and Ronald Reagan; and Communism's struggle with Fascism and anarchism. If the article were thus rearranged, the list of notable anti-Communists might be integrated rather than slapped on as an afterthought. Anti-Communist philosophy could then be presented as it existed in the minds of its great exponents - eliminating the need for an uncertain debate between Communists and anti-Communists on the Wikipedia staff.
I'd be happy to work on any reorganization. But since I'm a relatively new and infrequent editor, it seems appropriate to wait for the community's opinion. Let me know what you guys think.
-Beevil105, midnight CST, 27 Sep 05

Anarchist anti-Communism

This section needs to be edited. Not all anarchists are anti-capitalist, and it appears to have been written by socialist-anarchists.

MSTCrow 05:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the liberal and individualist section should really be added to, perhaps emphasizing opposition by paleoconservatives, libertarians, paleoliberals, and objectivists. ~ adropofreason

is all opposition to communism, anti-communism?

The article seems to take the point of view that anti-communism is simply opposition to communism. While linguistically that makes sense, I think that's not how the term has historically been used in the United States, where almost everyone is opposed to communism, but many would be hesitant to describe themselves as anti-communist, given the association of that term with the McCarthy era. Shouldn't there be some discussion of this point? --Trovatore 22:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intro could do with some mild disambiguation that deals with this concern. heqs 14:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. The sprawling and disorganized article says relatively little about anticommunism (McCarthyism, etc.). I think critiques of communism belong in the article on communism. Most of this article can be moved into more appropriate places or simply eliminated. --DH

George Orwell an anti-communist?

Whilst George Orwell did criticise the Stalinist dictatorship of the USSR I would not say that he was an anti-communist. If you read his anti-Stalinist book, "Animal Farm," you'll find that in many ways he romanticises the characters that are meant to represent Lenin, Trotsky and the Russian communist people. My personal interpretation of George Orwell's views are that he was opposed to Stalinism and not Communism. For me his criticism of the way Communism was supposedly 'put into action' by those such as Stalin is not an opposition to Communism itself. Leon Trotsky too was vehemently anti-Stalinist, is he too Anti-Communist?

No, he's not an anti-communist. I've removed it. Orwell was very much a Communist who opposed Totalitarianism. I think someone just got the wrong impression from his books. --Kinst 21:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sure? He seems pretty ired with the communists in Homage to Catalonia. Perhaps totalitarianism is one of the features of communism? BlueShirts 20:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orwell hardly criticised the communists, supporting as he did the Trotskyite POUM and, to a lesser degree, the communist anarcho-syndicalists. He was opposed to the not-very-communist Stalinist party, who opposed the revolution and undermined. Donnacha 23:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you mean by "communism". Orwell was for communism in the sense of the gift economy, and against communism in the sense of the parties aligned with the Bolsheviks. One might say he was an anti-Communist communist (note the capitalisation). — Gulliver ✉ 08:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had trouble finding him say he's a communist, since he tended to use socialism to mean communism. Here's something he said which is pretty close:

"In my opinion, nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of socialism as the belief that Russia is a socialist country and that every act of its rulers must be excused, if not imitated. And so for the last ten years, I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the socialist movement." George Orwell, Preface to Animal Farm

So he says Russia is a corruption of the ideal which he followed of socialism, which I believe means communism. --Kinst 02:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no. Socialism != Communism. heqs 12:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skim the History of Socialism article. It speaks of nothing but communist movements until after Orwell's death. Orwell's socialism wasn't tame and mild like that of today: "Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at all." Homage to Catalonia pg 376. Anyways, if he wasn't a flat out communist, he didn't criticise the movement, just Stalinism and Communist parties. Perhaps it is more accurate to say he was just a really big socialist.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kinst (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 May 2006.

"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it," he wrote in 1946, according to the George Orwell article. (hint: have a look at the democratic socialism article) heqs 17:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does communism necessitate revolution? The article opens with "Communism is a political ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production." I'd say he certainly agreed with establishing classless society based on common ownership of the means of production, though probably not by removing the state (He was patriotic). Heck, what credentials does one need to be communist? --Kinst 23:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, some people might conclude that he was anti-communist, some might conclude that he was communist. I'm not really interested in debating communism, just saying that it's pretty clear he did not identify as a communist in his later years, and there's no reason to try and deeply re-interpret him as one here. If there are biographers or theorists who do that, it might be appropriate to include in the George Orwell article. What's clear is that he was pro-democratic socialism and anti-Stalinism, anti-totalitarianism. heqs 23:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Kay. --Kinst 01:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was not an anti-communist. He was pro-Trotsky, pro-Lenin, and pro-proletariats. He was against capitalism. Enough evidence for me. Im taking him off the list.

He 'named names' to the British government. If that isn't 'anti-Communist, then nothing is. He was a Democratic Socialist who was friendly towards Anarchism. He saw the Soviet counterrevolution in Spain and he obviously did not like it.

Whether he was anti-Communist or not, his work certainly presents criticisms of it. Perhaps he should be mentioned with something like, "While debate continues as to whether George Orwell was anti-Communist overall, his works 1984 and Animal Farm do present criticisms of Communism. Orwell is also widely recognized as anti-Stalinist." -HolokittyNX (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overly Intellectual?

Is it just me, or is this article overly intellectual? It makes anti-communism sound kind of brainy and obscure, and not the sort of thing that your average boy or girl can take part in. Where in the article does it show how to organize an anti-communist car wash or bake sale? Also, the article does seem somewhat biased. The violent acts of some anti-communists are recorded, although heroic actions by other anti-communists appear to have been totally excluded from the article. Shouldn't both sides of the coin be presented?71.120.23.100 04:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Andrew Christian[reply]

Well, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, and not a manual for anti-communist activism. If you think it is biased, then add {{pov}} to the article and explain why it is biased here. 72.139.119.165 17:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather do a pro conservatism car wash. i don't waste time focusing on negatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.229.51 (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-communists who are also anti-fascists

Having a section like this implies that anti-communism is fascistic by default. I'd like to remove it. heqs 14:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the heading, they are now listed simply as notable anti-communists. If they are notable anti-fascists, list them elsewhere; if you want to make a list of "Anti-communists who are also anti-fascists", please make it elsewhere. heqs 09:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To hyphenate or not to hyphenate?

I believe anticommunism should not be hyphenated. A hyphen is appropriate after the prefix anti- in two occasions, neither of them present here: before a word that begins with the letter "i" (e.g., anti-influenza) and before a proper noun (e.g., anti-Soviet).

This is a grammatical point that has some substance as well. Without the hyphen, the term "anticommunism" has the connotation of an ideology or movement with an identity that has a coherence and internal logic that goes beyond mere opposition to communism. That is an accurate connotation. One aspect of this, for instance, is that the ideology of anticommunism includes support for capitalism. If anticommunism were defined exclusively by opposition to communism, it would be equally appropriate to use the term to refer to socialist opponents of communism and capitalist opponents of communism. That seems pretty clearly not to be the case.

So I propose retitling the article "Anticommunism" and replacing all instances of "anti-communism" with "anticommunism."

--DH

To your first point: those are just the cases in which the hyphen is mandatory. It is optional in other cases. Also, the C is frequently capitalised in "anti-Communism".

To your second point: you are just expressing an anti-Communist POV which has nothing to do with our task of writing this article. — Gulliver ✉ 06:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anti-communism and anticommunism both redirect here. The article just needs work and some disambiguation in this regard. heqs 18:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

I have just discovered that "Anti-socialism" redirects here. Surely this is not right? It appears to be taring both with the same brush. I would suggest either:

A new article about anti-socialism

or:

A renaming of this article to accomodate both political idelologies, which, although similar, are not the same.

Lofty 15:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anti-Communist massacres?

The section "Repression and anti-communism" contains a paragraph concerning "anti-Communist massacres", which is a confusing term. Do you mean massacres of Communists, or massacres by anti-Communists, irregardless of who they kill?

The 228 Massacre in Taiwan, is given as an example of an "anti-Communist massacre" though the wikipedia article about it shows that it had nothing to do with Communism per se. The massacre occurred as the new Chinese nationalist masters of Taiwan went about eliminating their native Taiwanese opposition, very few of who were Communist.

Anti-Comintern Pact, Imperial Japan Anti-Communism, Tojo?

Why is the Anti-Comintern pact (between Italy, Germany, and Japan) mentioned only once? Hitler and Mussolini are mentioned as being anti-communists, but where are their Japanese counterparts? Japan was extremely anti-communist, and most of South Korea's anti-communist government was made up of those who collaborated with Japan during WWII, who were educated in Japan (the first president of Korea, for example), and who were Korean officers in the Japanese army. Japanese anti-communism can also go far to explain Taiwan anti-communism, Taiwan being a Japanese colony from 1895 until the end of WWII. Tojo was just as anti-communist as Hitler and Mussolini, and can be seen as one of their Japanese counterparts. Yet he is not mentioned once here.

"Background" section needs serious cleanup

The current Background section is poorly written, confusing, and fails to serve adequately as a background for the article. Someone should thoroughly revise and expand it. I've placed a cleanup tag in the section to attract attention to this. --Varenius 00:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big C and little c

The main problem I feel with this article is that it doesn't distinguish between ideological communism spelt with a small c (as it is an adjective) and party Communism spelt with a large C (as it is a pronoun of the various Communist parties.) For example saying that Trotsky was anti communist is simply untrue, as Trotsky was very much a communist, just not a supporter of the Russian Communist Party. I think its important to show differences by those who opposed the Soviet Union, or now oppose PRC or North Korea. This does not make them anti communists. The same applies for George Orwell and to some degree Albert Camus amoung others mentioned in this article.

Yes. Trotsky was an anti-Communist, but definately not and anticommunist.

I'm sorry, I'm finding it hard to follow the reasoning here. Trotsky was neither 'anti-Communist' nor 'anti-communist.' If he was anything he was anti-Stalinist, but remained a committed Communist (and communist) until his death, founding his own International. George Orwell, in contrast, was both anti-Communist and anti-communist ( I hope people can follow this!), defining himself as a 'democratic socialist', something quite different from Communism or communism. Phew! White Guard 02:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-communism in the United States and Cold War

Where's the Sedition Act of 1918 or the Palmer Raids? I'm no expert on the issues, but they were the origin of official US anti-communism. Donnacha 01:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, edit in this information, where appropriate. White Guard 02:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fascism and anti-communism

There is talk about this at the Fascism article. In what way is fascism, as an ideology, concerned with anti-communism or anti-socialism. Share your thoughts at Talk:Fascism. Intangible 03:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-communism was a very important element of Fascism.13:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)85.216.89.205 (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The South

Why were people in the southern United States so vocal against communism?-Amit

During the de-segregation period in the 1950s and 1960s, southerners who opposed desegregation associated it with communism (it was in the headlines of newspaper articles, for example). They felt it made perfect sense to keep blacks and whites segregated, and that de-segregation was similar to an idealistic, "communist" approach.Jimhoward72 19:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think there is something wrong with anti communism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.229.51 (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because commies fail. Captain Spleen (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCarthyism

I was very surprised to see that McCarthyism was not mentioned in this article. Should it at least be added to the 'See Also' section? --Thaddius 02:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist anti-communism Tag

This section is written from a perspective that would be described as left-wing "anarchism." Ignoring the dispute about their self-appellation of the anarchist label, it is most certainly not the case that anarchists "anarchists traditionally agree with Communists that capitalism is a tool for oppression, that it is unjust and that it should be destroyed, one way or another." That would be categorically rejected by anarchists that support free society and freedom of the individual. "Anarchists initially rejoiced over the 1917 revolution as an example of workers taking power for themselves, and indeed played a part in the revolution" is uncited and suspect. "Anarchists often cite the crushing of the Kronstadt Rebellion, in which the Red Army defeated an embryonic anarchist commune" would be indicative of anarcho-communism, not anarchism as a whole. This section is written as sympathetic to the idea of an "anarchist," collectivist, non-individualist concept of society. It is most certainly not representative of anarchism as a whole, only one small segment of the schools of thought that declare themselves to be "anarchist." - MSTCrow 05:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was an anarchist movement in Russia in 1917, which is well-documented (e.g. texts by Paul Avrich or Voline. This movement was dominated by anarchist communists, syndicalists and what would later be known as the Platformist tradition. It is well documented that these anarchists played an active part in the 1917 revolution and were anti-capitalist. This anarchist movement was suppressed by the Bolsheviks, most significantly in the defeat of the Kronstadt Rebellion. Other currents of anarchism in that historical period were the "small segments". I personally don't think this article needs to give much more in the way of bibliographical citations, as the more specialist articles Kronstadt rebellion, Nestor Makhno and Russian anarchism give lots of references. Anyway, I've added a couple of links where it said citation needed. I don't think the section should be flagged as totally disputed.

However, is it right to call Victor Serge an anarchist? BobFromBrockley 09:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some criticism from individualist anarchism, and not solely taken from collectivist "anarchist" movements. Um, I don't know much about Victor Serge, but if Wikipedia is accurate on his article (did you hear about the Essjay scandal on /.?), I'd say he wasn't an anarchist. - MSTCrow 19:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, go ahead and write about individualist anarchist criticism. BobFromBrockley 12:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the section is written from the perspective of anarchists, not Libertarian, Republican, pro-capitalist (and in your case, apparently anti-recycling and pro-Likud) wikipedia vandals, who since a few years ago apparently form a major historical school of anarchism. If you can find any legitimate sources, i.e. not off LewRockwell or some wingnut blog, that supports your viewpoints as major anarchist perspectives on Communism, go ahead and edit the section, but otherwise, stop wasting everyone's time with your inane delusions. --Tothebarricades 04:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get a clue. The liberal anarchist literature is vast and I'm sure someone who gives more of a damn than me--or who takes their POV more seriously--could find plenty; I've run across some references myself but couldn't care less. It's not everyday, however, that I run across an award-winning Wikipedian and supposed expert in a subject both flaunting ignorance and being insulting about it, to boot! 4.240.114.58 06:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

template of communism removed

Template of communism removed in fact was inserted by this vandal User talk:72.2.102.241. IVO 14:18 18 Mar 2007

Links

The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation

Errr... the fact that Communism has killed millions upon millions of people...

Ummm... Has the fact that Communism impoverishes, starves or kills the working class it tries so hard to help been mentioned? Pol Pot? Stalin? Mao? Shining examples of the delusional champagne socialist claptrap of Carl Marx.

The fact that anyone ever listened to this man is one of mankind's greatest tragedies. How many people must die before we realise that communism is nothing more than a means to makes the working class gracefully accept the government's boot in their groin?

The real arguement against communism is one of libertarian ideals. The libertarian section desperately needs soem meat on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.169.14 (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This fact does not wipe out the fact that capitalism can kill, too. Ask the ppl living in the rainforests about the activities of big companis like McD. And ask yourself the qustion why rich lands like Congo (very rich in terms of supply) are suchs a waste: the answer migth include colonialism. And the fact that any serious producing industry from Congo itself would not be able to export its products bc of "tariff barriers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.180.134 (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "fact" that Communism has "killed millions", it is simply an opinion and mis-characterizes the actual debate about anti-Communism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.48.39 (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is tantamount to a supporter of Nazism denying the Holocaust. Its unacceptable. The man created Great Chinese Famine happened, no doubt. So did the Great Purge and various other horrors against humanity and repression of the working class, no doubt. Easily millions of deaths caused by Communism, just between those two examples. - Gennarous (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You imperialists posters are idiots! You have no right to talk about what happend in other counties if you have no first hand experience. At the time period in which "communism" supposovly killed many people, China was in TERRIBLE shape, ever since the qing empire collapsed. Thats probably why people were so desperate to govern their country on a wacky idea like communism in the first place. People would definetly be dieing anyway. Blaming mao for the people that died in PRC, is like blaming every single person who ever died on USA soil on George Washington. Did you know that after a commmunist regime was installed, the life expectancy rose from 35 up to the 60s? And literacy also increased by almost 80%? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.224.65 (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added NPOV tag to "criticism" section...

Hi all,

Gotta say, the "criticism" section seems to be worded more as a pejorative-loaded diatribe against opposition to "anti-communism". This section really needs to be written to reflect a broader perspective on what the critics say about "anti-communism". There are many reliable sources that represent views (including my own view) strongly aligned with America's constitutional democracy, and libertarian principles, and yet see that "anti-communism" has often been appropriated and twisted by (for example) the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, and used as part of the Western propaganda model.

See (for one example) this explanation Western_propaganda#Anti-Ideologies.3B_substitutes_for_anti-communism.

Anti-Ideologies; substitutes for anti-communism

A final filter is anti-ideology. Anti-ideologies exploit public fear and hatred of groups that pose a potential threat, either real or imagined. Communism once posed the primary threat according to the model. Communism and socialism were portrayed by their detractors as endangering freedoms of speech, movement, press, etc. They argue that such a portrayal was often used as a means to silence voices critical of elite interests.

With the Soviet Union's collapse, proponents of the propaganda model have argued that the functionality and credibility of anti-communism has been fundamentally compromised. Proponents state that new, more functional anathemas have arisen to take its place. Chomsky and Herman argue that one possible replacement for anti-communism seems to have emerged in the form of "anti-terrorism".

So, I added the NPOV tag and look forward to joining the discussion...thanks. WNDL42 (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]