Talk:Communism/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

There is a factual problem. "In Some Cases, The state." When Communism in theory is inherently stateless.

I have an issue when people write false information on the internet, Communism is stateless so why does it say: "In some cases, stateless." I read this ABC of communism which directly contradicted this: Here is what it states. "There is no class war, and there are no class organisations. Consequently, the State has ceased to exist. Since there is no class war, the State has become superfluous. There is no one to be held in restraint, and here is no one to impose restraint." The claim, "Some cases, the state." is utterly false in my opinion. Please refer to page 74 , ABC of communism. Also, the sixth source [6] does not show that communism is stateless/with the state either because some of the links do not work. If you would like to change this, I'd be happy. --CelvestianNesy (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

For Marxists, it is indeed held that communist distribution (from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs) will occur in conditions where the state no longer has reason to exist, although Stalin argued in 1939 that the Soviet state would remain even under communism "unless the capitalist encirclement is liquidated, and unless the danger of foreign military attack has disappeared." On the other hand, utopian works that depict societies with communist distribution (Thomas More's Utopia, Campanella's City of the Sun, Winstanley's The Law of Freedom, etc.) often have some sort of state structure, even if said structure is depicted as greatly simplified compared to societies based on private property. --Ismail (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

So, Communism is not inherently stateless cause of this? --CelvestianNesy (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Well as I said, there have been authors in prior centuries who depicted or even advocated communist societies where some sort of state structure existed. In that sense communism isn't "inherently" stateless. But Marxists argue that the state comes into being with the division of society into classes, and the state will wither away with the abolition of class-based societies, hence why they argue communism will be stateless. Then there are the anarcho-communists, who obviously don't advocate any sort of state existing within a communist society. So it's safe to say that as far as "modern" supporters of communism are concerned, communist society will be stateless (even Stalin only allowed for the state's continued existence under communism in the event that rival capitalist states still existed to threaten the Soviet population.) --Ismail (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I thought I was reading bull right here XD, but it just seemed to conflict with my modern definition of communism. Can we put into the article that: "Modern communists want a stateless society." In the first line of the article, as to clear any misunderstanding? Or are there such things already placed?--CelvestianNesy (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "modern" definitions of communism. All communists want to eventually achieve communism, and hence a stateless society. This has always been true, and nothing has changed in "modern times". The difference here is that different communists support different ways of achieving communism. For instance, Marxist-Leninists believe that a strong state led by a vanguard party is necessary to protect itself from foreign capitalist forces until a global revolution is achieved. Others like anarcho-communists want to dissolve the state as soon as possible. Left communists put more emphasis on autonomus structures, and so on. BeŻet (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think the article needs to explain what "modern" communists want relative to "early" communists. If someone is looking up "Communism" on Wikipedia, they're almost certainly not trying to find information on how utopians like Winstanley and Étienne Cabet envisaged a communist society. It'd be sorta like if the article on Christianity had a sentence saying "modern Christians do not believe in [insert something a few defunct and now-obscure Christian sects advocated centuries ago]." --Ismail (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it correct to refer to utopian socialism as communism? Bear in mind the terms socialism and communism originated in the 19th century and were interchangeable until the 20th, with the exception of their use in Marxist terminology to describe stages of civilization. TFD (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The term "utopian socialism" is usually used to describe a diverse array of individuals. Henri Saint-Simon for example still advocated a society with private property and classes, whereas as I've noted before on this talk page Engels referred to Robert Owen's Book of the New Moral World as containing "the most clear-cut communism possible." Yet both are often called "utopian socialists" in a catch-all sense. Georgi Plekhanov wrote in reference to the 1830s-40s that, "Generally speaking, the concept 'socialism' then differed in France from the concept 'communism' by the fact that in their draft plans of the future social system the socialists allowed for some — often quite significant — inequality of property, whereas the communists rejected it." You'll notice that on this talk page when I've referred to utopian figures it has been those who are often described as having depicted and/or advocated communist societies: Thomas More, Tommaso Campanella, Gerrard Winstanley, Jean Meslier, Morelly, Mably, Babeuf, Owen, Cabet (who actually called himself a communist), etc. --Ismail (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Engels wrote about Owen in 1877, while he did not develop his theory of socialist and communist stages of civilization until after 1877. Cabet coined the term communism, but that doesn't mean he meant the same thing as Marx and Engels. The modern usage of the two terms dates from the early 20th century when there was a split in the socialist movement leading to separate Communist parties. But this discussion is original research, and not how we should determine article content. Although there are other possible definitions of communism, this article is about a specific topic. TFD (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Dühring was written decades after Marx and Engels had begun propounding what they termed the "materialist conception of history." Figures like Owen were considered utopian in part because they lacked this conception of history, as Engels makes clear in that same work. There are writings by Vyacheslav Volgin, Hal Draper, Leszek Kołakowski, Eric Hobsbawm and others that discuss utopian thinkers in relation to Marx and Engels and how figures like Cabet were viewed by Marx and Engels as communists (albeit obviously of a utopian variety, hence their criticisms of them.) I agree that this article should focus on "the modern usage" of communism, which is primarily that of how Marxists understand the term, but if we are going to discuss the utopians on this talk page it is important to clarify what we're talking about and why, since the article does have a section titled "Early communism." --Ismail (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you will find any distinction between a socialist and communist society in Marx and Engels using those words until Origin of the Family (1884). In the Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875), they referred to them as lower and higher forms of communism. So when they used the terms socialist and communist before he defined them in 1884, you cannot assume he was using the 1884 definition. You need secondary sources written by experts to determine what they meant. In Gotha for example a communist state could have a government, while in Family it couldn't. That's not because Engel's concept of communism had changed, but because his terminology had. TFD (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

But again, I'm only talking about those utopians who can be considered communist in some way (such as Morelly, Owen, and Cabet), and who in many cases were described as propounding communist doctrines by Marx and/or Engels. Again, there are multiple books that discuss the subject, both by Marxist and non-Marxist authors. We're not talking about the "lower phase" of communism as defined by Marx (which is usually termed socialism by subsequent Marxists), we're talking about utopian thinkers who advocated that goods be distributed in accordance with needs and consequently condemned private property. --Ismail (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

As I explained, this is original research. We can't go through the works of Marx, Engels, Stalin and the Utopian socialists and form conclusions about what communism means. We have to rely on secondary sources for that. All I pointed out was that there was no consistency in how the word was defined. TFD (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It isn't original research. There are numerous books and articles that discuss the subject of utopian socialist/communist authors and their relation to (and distance from) Marx and Engels, as well as books and articles that discuss specific individuals associated with the aforementioned utopianism (e.g. there are multiple biographies of Babeuf, two biographies of Mably in English, no shortage of analyses of More's Utopia, etc.) The current article describes communism as "a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production," and this is a common tread linking such figures with Marx and Engels, regardless of the very important differences between them. --Ismail (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright, but it just seems kind of CONFUSING to me as someone who is less politically experienced. However, things leading to communism are said in the article? Is it? If so, perhaps the digging has to be done outside of Wikipedia to find the answer (Which I already have by the way). Reading the article and such, of course I was warned that Wikipedia wasn't ALWAYS a reliable source, as anybody could go ahead and change it. Though it is a bit sad that some think that "China is communist." which is just kind of dreadful for me to handle. (China isn't communist by the way, realistically it's state capitalist) --CelvestianNesy (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The sources don't support the statement. I think the problem is that the term communist can sometimes be used to refer to different topics, such as Communist led economies or utopian socialism. Also, I don't think that a paragraph from Stalin has any weight unless secondary sources comment on it. Communism is a term for the society that will develop once the state has withered away. TFD (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

There do exist secondary sources that comment on Stalin's claim, but I'm not actually advocating it be mentioned in the article, I only brought up Stalin's claim in response to a question on this talk page. As I said, Stalin ultimately thought communism entailed a stateless society, like any other self-described communist of significance in the past 150 or so years. --Ismail (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Whitewashed?

Fox News recently accused this article and several others related to it (including articles about socialism and communism) of being whitewashed and biased. Thoughts? X-Editor (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Was it Fox News or someone expressing an opinion on Fox News Channel. Please provide a source. Incidentally, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Fox News is considered biased and there is no consensus on its reliability. Incidentally, by articles about socialism, are they including the Biden administration? TFD (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: It's this one. The reason I started this discussion was to see if any of Fox's complaints are vaild, but based on their hard right bias, I'm not so certain of that. What are your thoughts? The Fox News source does not consider Biden to be socialist btw. X-Editor (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth spending any time discussing Fox News "arguments" here, the article is well sourced and just simply doesn't reflect their biases. BeŻet (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

In the my edit discussed immediately above used the edit summary ok, so while I think a lot of the criticisms of this and its related articles are misplaced, I do note that this section insufficiently summarizes the "main" articles per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. To be clear, the "criticisms of this" refers to the Fox News criticism of this article, not criticism of communism. I assumed that didn't need to be articulated here since Mottezen had already added it here by the time the discussion opened. I stand by my original assessment. That is to say, when I went through the various claims, most of it is just Fox being Fox. I found one claim that did seem to have a nugget of validity to it, but in the form of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE rather than "whitewashing". My hope was that I could address the one valid complaint by the time most people actually read the article (it was a few hours after publication). Alas. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The criticism section could be longer, but the problem is what exactly is being criticized. Communist thought reaches back to antiquity, as do criticisms such as that by Aristotle against abolishing private property. So I think it makes sense for this article's criticism section to focus on critiques of the very idea or prospect of a communist society (that is, one in which private property is abolished and goods are distributed based on need), rather than the specific theories of Marx and Engels or the policies pursued by avowed Marxists in power considering there are already articles on these subjects. --Ismail (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That would be, in my opinion, original research as the capitalist system of private property wasn't around when Aristotle was alive. However, if there are notable sources which refer to Aristotle when criticizing a communist society, these could be included, but probably belong to the latter article. BeŻet (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how "the capitalist system of private property wasn't around when Aristotle was alive" is relevant when private property clearly predates capitalism, and communism aims at getting rid of private property altogether and not merely replace one form of it with another. Aristotle's arguments (that abolishing private property would encourage laziness, would promote strife between people, was contrary to "human nature," etc.) are still found in modern critiques of communism, much as Plato's negative comments on private property (which Aristotle was criticizing) have continued to influence people for over a thousand years, including Thomas More whose Utopia is generally considered the first "modern" socialist/communist work, written when capitalism was still in its infancy. It isn't original research; there are reliable sources discussing Aristotle's objections to communism, e.g. this and this. --Ismail (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Appreciate you showed some sources discussing this with the context of communism, however there are a couple of things worth considering here. First, abolishing private property is the goal of communism rather than a strategy, and the arguments presented by people quoting Aristotle usually live within the context of abolishing private property right now, in our existing unequal class-based society. Secondly, socialist thought focuses primarily on abolishing private ownership of the means of production and land, with the goal of doing away with all private property all together after achieving communism. Aristotle's critique seems to be broadening the scope of private property to also include personal property and possessions. Nonetheless, it's probably worth mentioning somewhere, however I am not sure if this angle is notable enough to be included in the current paragraph. BeŻet (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how communism being a goal rather than a "strategy" makes Aristotle's criticisms irrelevant to the article. And I am talking about Aristotle's specific criticisms of abolishing private property, not personal property or the family. --Ismail (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I think Fox News obviously does not understand the difference between the general and the specific. Communism, socialism, capitalism etc. are general concepts, and it is good that their respective pages do not contain criticism (or advocacy for that matter) of specific countries. The capitalism page does not contain criticism of the United States government, for example, even though the United States is the most prominent and widely known capitalist country in the world. Not including very specific criticism on a very general page is not whitewashing. It's just proper organization of content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.161.13 (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, maybe the criticism heading of the capitalism page can serve as a model here. It consists of two short paragraphs. The first one says who criticizes capitalism, and the second one very briefly summarizes what the critics say, in general ("critics say that capitalism leads to X, Y, Z"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.161.13 (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Except that editors, myself included, are arguing to remove the paragraphs. TFD (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I've tried adding some general paragraphs regarding communist party rule, but I think it needs correct wording to clarify why we are talking about communist party rule there. We know that there is a mainstream cultural association of communism with "communist states" and communist party rule, but this article obviously isn't about that particular topic. BeŻet (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Criticism sections are most of the time bad practice, and they should also obey WP:DUE. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I guess the tricky WP:DUE aspect here is that a lot of "criticism of communism" is actually criticism of specific aspects of Marxist-Leninist states. The point here would be to clarify that and point the reader in the right direction (e.g. Criticism of communist party rule). That way one can avoid the accusation of "whitewashing" while remaining factual. BeŻet (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, a lot of "criticism of communism" is actually criticism of specific aspects of Marxist-Leninist states. There's a clear difference between the concrete history of the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninist, and communism. It has seems to have been accepted in this thread that both should be conflated due to an article written by the corporate anti-communist news channel of Fox News, which points out the article does not discuss what they call "the genocides committed by socialist and communist regimes". This article is about the ideology of communism, not history of communism, so this "discussion" is out of scope. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 17:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You're saying historical examples of governments WIDELY considered to be representative of communism (even by communists) should not be referenced when criticizing communism. By your reasoning, the Wikipedia article on Fascism is pure propaganda (even more so than this article) and need not mention developments in Italy and Germany circa WW2.2001:480:91:FF00:0:0:0:15 (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The comparison doesn't really make sense. Communist thought predates Marx and Engels by centuries, and both men died decades prior to the October Revolution. Mussolini and Hitler promoted fascism and led fascist states. The person you're responding to isn't saying that "historical examples. . . should not be referenced when criticizing communism," the point is that criticism of communism should be focused on the concept itself. There are plenty of authors who argue on philosophical and economic grounds, without the need to reference the USSR and similar countries, that communism is impossible and/or undesirable (that it would require totalitarian controls, that it would lead to intellectual and economic stagnation, etc.) --Ismail (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• This article is very biased in favor of the concept of communism, this is rather reckless as communism is the most failed government in modern history, more people have been murdered by a communist government than any other type of government in the last two centuries. It is still important to teach because the concepts are alluring and it sounds like it could be a good idea, but in order for it to implement two things must happen, there must be a single power structure and each of its members must be the property of that structure. If the power structure is benevolent then the people in this structure will most likely prosper - however there is this unfortunate caveat which many of its implementers were not aware of. The infallibility of humanity and the corruption of power were and are the downfall of communist, socialist, and any other utopian form of governance. Without separation of powers and the god-given rights which are not granted but protected by a government any form of government quickly becomes sinister and evil, power without separation and constraint always corrupts, always attracts those who are corrupted to it and the greater and more concentrated the power the greater the magnitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.155.153 (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of communism

The following portion from the "criticism" section was recently removed for being unsourced:

Marxism is also subject to general criticism such as that it requires necessary suppression of liberal democratic rights, that there are issues with the implementation of communism, and that there are economic issues such as the distortion or absence of price signals.

Regardless of whether you agree with these particular criticisms, it's difficult to deny that these are criticisms that people have had of communism. Any help in finding reliable sources substantiating the claims made would be helpful.  Mysterymanblue  17:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Any criticism should be attributed and the degree of its acceptance explained. The first criticism is btw false. The SDP for example is credited with protecting liberal democratic rights in the Weimar Republic which ended ironically when liberals joined the other pro-capitalist parties in voting for a dictatorship. TFD (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: The criticism section is supposed to be a brief overview (the main articles are Criticism of communist party rule and Criticism of Marxism), so I disagree that there needs to be extensive discussion about each point made. I am not going to engage in a discussion about the merits of the various criticisms of communism as this talk page is not a forum for that; the criteria for the mention of such criticism in the article is whether it is documented in reliable secondary sources, not whether you or I consider it to be "correct".  Mysterymanblue  18:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

See Unsupported attributions. Unattributed claims should not be included. Some people think the moon is made of green cheese but adding that statement to the moon article without explanation would be misleading. Incidentally, criticism sections are bad form, since they go against neutrality. There's no criticism section in Nazism, even though it has received criticism. That's because good writing incorporates criticism into the main text. TFD (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

As the manual of style says, "The examples above are not automatically weasel words." It specifically allows generally attributed statements for situations like lead paragraphs and topic sentences, where a brief summary of a particular idea is key and full substantiation follows elsewhere. This is essentially the same thing; the "Criticism" section provides a brief summary of criticism of communism, while the main criticism articles provide the substantial information about the topic. This information about general critiques of communism has been part of the article for a long time, so the general presumption is that consensus supports its inclusion; it should be readded if and when sources are found to substantiate its claim.

You may be right that a criticism section is bad form, but it has been a part of this article for a long time and there have been numerous discussions concerning its presence; they don't seem to have come to the conclusion that it is inappropriate and should be removed. Perhaps you wish to relitigate this issue, but I am doubtful that major improvements can be made to this article without bringing the ideologues out to feast.  Mysterymanblue  23:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing in the section says that Marxism has been criticized because it "requires necessary suppression of liberal democratic rights." While it's OK to summarize what follows, nothing follows. TFD (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Substantiation of the summarization is provided in Criticism of communist party rule and Criticism of Marxism.  Mysterymanblue  00:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not. Criticism of Marxism talks of no such thing; and criticism of communist party rule is irrelevant here since it talks about something different. BeŻet (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Assuming the other articles answer that information, it still violates neutrality for this article to present information in a non-neutral manner. If criticism is too unimportant to explain it clearly, then it is too unimportant to include in the article. I do not see the argument that we can add misinformation so long as it is explained in another article to be a valid argument. And can you explain to me why you think that the SDP suppressed liberal democratic rights, when all the non-Marxist parties voted to give Hitler absolute power? Or do you think that Hitler protected liberal democratic rights? TFD (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

TFD, see WP:OR, WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:BLUDGEON, please.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't type in WP:RANDOMPOLICIES in lieu of making a rational argument. Did you find this criticism in a textbook or a random neo-fascist website? Incidentally, WP:OR says, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." You might want to WP:READ policies before WP:CITING them. TFD (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No Mention of Mass Killings

NOTE: This thread was started in December 2020. As of the present (July 2021), a paragraph about mass killings already exists. The original request has been answered.

Neither the criticism section nor the Soviet Union section mention the mass killings that took place under communist regimes. The Wikipedia article "Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes" estimates the total of victims to be 110 million, and the victims of the Soviet Union to be 20 million people. Since the article talks about implementations and not only the ideology, these important aspects should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmelino (talk • contribs) 22:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I would support this. It is an important thing to have in the article, and if it is not mentioned at all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkynetPR (talk • contribs) 01:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that mass killings are notable and should be included. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

One thing to note here is that the article "Mass killings under communist regimes" talks about killings associated with "communist regimes", which is the western term used for Marxist–Leninist states. None of these states have ever claimed to have implemented communism, but have been led by people describing themselves as communist. BeŻet (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• To clarify, you mean that the leader of a state may be communist, but due to poor implementation the system doesn't resemble communism? It seems a bit reductive to say that 110M people arent dead because of communism on a thin semantic difference. It'd be like saying that the Uyghur Genocide isn't happening under communism because we're using a 181 year old definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.88.166 (talk) 21:10, 16:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  No, I'm not saying any of that. I'm saying that we already have articles talking about mass killings committed by countries led by communist parties, which wanted to at some point achieve communism. As a side note, if you're talking about 110M dead (so it's 110M now, huh?) I'm guessing you're referring to the highly controversial and discredited estimate presented by the Black Book of Communism, which, amongst many inaccuracies, attributes death from hunger to the total death toll. Following this logic we could accuse capitalism of killing hundreds of millions, if not billions of people, because every year 9 million people die from hunger around the world, mostly in Africa where there is no communist state and only capitalist ones, so capitalism tops the Black Book's estimate every dozen years or so. Alternatively we could talk about genocides committed by capitalists, like the million people killed in Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 or the hundreds of thousands killed in Spain during the White Terror, or the hundreds of thousands killed in South Korea in the Bodo League massacre etc.. However, I think including that in the article about capitalism would be rather silly. BeŻet (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  "110M now, huh?" the second sentence in the first post uses an internal wikipedia link with that figure... Also, if extreme capitalism as an ideology lends itself to atrocities (I.E. Nestle) then that should be widely known, however that's not the topic. Mass killings under communism are. Saying 'YOU TOO!' isn't a convincing argument, especially as the communist regimes have a tendency to commit hum rights abuses, i.e. the Soviet Union, East Germany, North Vietnam, the Khmer Rouge, the DPRK, PRC e.t.c. By all means make a "mass killings under capitalism" page, but you've provided no argument that suggests that there shouldn't be a section under communism as well. This reeks of damage control. Incidentally, on your bio you only have photos of Marxist thinkers, and seeing as, ostensibly, Marxism evolved into modern Communism, it seems reasonable that you're biased in this discussion, and before you cry ad hominem, its directly relevant to the discussion.

  I'm explaining to you that since capitalist regimes are responsible for plenty of atrocities, and we don't mention them directly in the article about capitalism (because that would be rather silly), there is no reason to mention atrocities committed by states which were hoping to achieve communism under the article about communism. Mass killings are not a core element of capitalist or communist ideologies, as opposed to say fascism or nazism, where racial hierarchy and social Darwinism are at the core of that ideology. Also, I guess by "modern Communism" you mean "Marxist-Leninism" - again, I implore you to use the right terminology as this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. The article about Marxist-Leninism is where you will find the mentioning of mass killings. BeŻet (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• It is of utmost importance to mention and detail the amount of autocide that has occurred under communist regimes, and I think also to describe and detail the mechanisms within communism that allow individuals to be subject to their government. When the American government was created there were many restraints put in place within the governmental system to make it very difficult for power to accumulate into a sole individual or entity. Communism does not have those same restraints, it could not have them because in order for it to have success it requires that the government has total power over each of the citizens - even if those few individuals who hold that power are benevolent and the people prosper, the natural cycle is that power attracts those who are not and they will continue to gain strength until they seize that power, it's at this time that the autocide, genocide and wars begin. America's founders saw no feasible way to defeat this natural cycle, so their solution was to separate power and restrain the powers of each separate power to only that which was enumerated. This concept has prevented those in power within the US Government from committing massive atrocities that we saw with the socialist dictatorships and fascist communist regimes, although it did and is continuing to fail to prevent atrocities from happening at all. I think it is incredibly important to discuss ownership of the citizens and total power and how both of these are required in communism and are the exact reason why it is a failed idea despite being great in concept. It's not so much the infallibility of the concept but instead the infallibility of humanity itself to maintain benevolence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.155.153 (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  Mass killing are already described here: Mass killings under communist regimes. The US Government has committed massive atrocities (literally killing tens of millions of Native Americans), and I'm not sure why you are bringing up that country anyway. BeŻet (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

What reliable source says the U.S. government "literally kill[ed] tens of millions of Native Americans"? I'm certainly not aware of any.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• The mass killings should be mentioned because secondary sources often mention them.  Mysterymanblue  09:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  It's already mentioned. BeŻet (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻet: I understand; I have performed edits to that section. My comment supporting its inclusion is relevant because some are supporting its removal.  Mysterymanblue  14:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Guys...? There's a whole paragraph about mass killings in the criticism section already. Did no one notice that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.7.85 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The portion that discusses mass killings calls out in multiple places how "mass killings" are disputed, comparing Hitler and Stalin isn't fair, etc. This page is a joke and doesn't highlight the net effects of this ignorant ideology and how it has demonstrably overlooked key aspects of human nature (envious, hateful, and murderous) on many occasions, regardless of party leadership. It downplays the true nature of communism and that is the same thing happening in Universities across the United States, led by staff of life-long students-turned professors, that have no idea how to operate in the real world. This page should bring up the Lubyanka and what the USSR did to prisoners there. In many cases, for nothing more than whispering despondent words about Stalin in private letters or among supposed friends. Then, to be brought to "trials" that made a mockery of a fair judicial system, and often times resulted in immediate executions. Communists will stop at nothing to defeat classes they've labeled the enemy of the people, and they will happily move the goal posts, as needed, to achieve their aims. There is no denying it resulted in millions of deaths over the last 100+ years that make the horrific numbers of the Holocaust pale in comparison. The U.S. is being run by these same types of people who will stop at nothing and it won't be something you can ignore once they turn on you, and they always do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.165.42 (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

List of countries and or regions where communism is successful

Did communism work in Vietnam? Did communism work in Amish communes? Where did communism work? ~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.83.111 (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Vietnam has the world's 37th largest economy by GDP and 23rd largest based on purchasing power parity (PPP), may have the world's fastest growing economy and could become the world's 20th largest economy by 2050 (see Economy of Vietnam). It has full literacy and exceeds 60% of other nations in life expectancy. Meanwhile China is on course to become the world's largest economy while India, with a now higher population, is far back. TFD (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing issues and improvements to the article "Communism". It is not for discussing communism in general. If you have a suggestion for the article, please share it; otherwise, you may find that other corners of the web are better suited to discuss the merits of communist rule.  Mysterymanblue  01:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I took it from the title of the discussion thread that the IP editor was suggesting we add to the article a list of successful communist states. The problem of course is that there's no criteria for evaluating this. TFD (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead: "The USSR was not communist" (sourced to Truthout.org)

The notion that the USSR was not a communist state is fringe. It is completely out of sync with how the overwhelming majority of academics and experts categorize the USSR's regime type and ideology. It is deceptive and misleading to readers to prominently claim that there is an active debate about whether the USSR was communist when no meaningful debate exists among reputable sources. The sources for the claim that the USSR was not communist are:

1. Truthout.org – not a RS. General a peddler of nonsense.
2. Noam Chomsky - not an expert on the topic.
3. An article in the 'History of Economics Review', which is a low-impact heterodox economics journal[1]

There are three additional sources that are cited but none of the sources have anything to do with whether the USSR was communist or not (it looks like some in-the-weeds debate about whether the USSR was formally a "planned command-system" or a "administrative-command system"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The term "communist state" is an oxymoron, similar to referring to an anarchist state (although state of anarchy is fine.) Under communism, there would be no state. The founders called it a "socialist state" and that forms part of its name: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Whether or not it was socialist is a matter of debate. It is fair to say however that the constitution was written by the Communist Party which would run the state according to its ideology. Many if not most reliable sources capitalize Communist in order to avoid this type of confusion. TFD (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

If I may jump in: Many historians simply refer to the USSR and similar countries as "communist" without defining the term. In other words, the USSR was communist simply because we choose to call it by that label. That is fair enough. If "communism" simply means "what the USSR did" or "what the CPSU supported", of course there can be no debate on whether the USSR was communist, in the same way that we cannot debate whether France is French.

But among those academics who provide a definition of communism separate from the USSR's actions (in other words, those who do not use "communist" as a synonym for "Soviet-like"), there is indeed an active debate regarding to what extent the USSR can be characterized as communist.

I believe that Wikipedia already has an article about the common use of the word "communist" to refer to Soviet-like regimes, and that article is communist state. This article should not become a duplicate of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:b1a8:d06a:745b:d0fb:6cd6:b16f (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Your comment shows a lack of misunderstanding, as nowhere in the lead does it actually say that the Soviet Union was not a Communist state, which is simply a categorization used by scholars; it simply says that whether or not it was socialist is a matter of debate, and that it never established communism as understood in this article. The IP is right that we already have an article for that (Communist state), and this should not become a duplicate of that. Davide King (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree with TFD, the anon IP and Davide King. The claim is totally uncontroversial and is phrased reasonably carefully. I see the discussion at the fringe noticeboard (was this talk page notified of that?) has reached the same conclusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Lead_of_Communism:_%22The_USSR_was_not_communist%22 It would be easy to add sources if required, but the current sources are fine. Chomsky is one of the most widely read libertarian socialist intellectuals, and while not an academic expert on communism is an OK source for how the terms are used in the debates. The Truthout source is by Richard D Wolff, one of the most important Marxist scholars today. And the History of Economics Review looks good enough, with the authors being economics scholars at a reputable university. If other editors share concerns about these three sources, flag the text with a better source tag and I'll find better sources next week. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley, thanks for your comment. I say that you can post further sources here, so that they may be added in the body, as further reading, or Communist-related articles where relevant to improve clarification. I also agree with your suggestion there to use capital-c Communism to refer to Communist states and ruling parties, and small-c communism to the general movement; communist state is an oxymoron, Communist state, i.e. a state led by a Communist party, is not as oxymoronic, though the proper term used is socialist state, and the main difference seems to be that socialist state is a specific type of state that is constitutionally socialist (same thing for Communist, a socialist state does not necessarily mean the economy is socialist), while Communist state is used to refer to a specifically Communist party-led state but which still describe itself as a socialist state. Davide King (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Davide King. I'll probably not be able to look until next week, but I think Wolff would be good but maybe not his TruthOut article as it gives teh impression it's fringe. I'll leave this here for now, but I'm sure there's better: https://www.umass.edu/pubaffs/chronicle/archives/02/10-11/economics.html BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The USSR was a "communist state" led by a communist party, but did not achieve communism. This is not a controversial statement. BeŻet (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

It's self-contradictory. Would we speak about an independent state achieve independence? Or what about an educated person who was not educated? TFD (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2021

In the *Theory* category, change the name of the *Other communisms* subcategory to *Other types of communism* Endbreak2 (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done. See here. Davide King (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Revising the analysis section

We think the “Analysis” section needs significant revision. Here are some reasons why it needs to be revised, followed by some ways in which it could be revised.

Why this section needs to be revised: The inclusion of the “analysis” suggests a concrete, complete, and generally accepted consensus of the history and ideology of communism, when no widely accepted conclusion exists amongst scholars. A more helpful addition would be a section devoted to the debate surrounding the ‘success’, ‘failures’, and controversy of communism, and perhaps a true analysis of the ideology and implementation of communism in different parts of the world. The current paragraphs focus solely on the negative impacts of communism, specifically the violence involved in the implementation in historical examples such as Russia and China. If there is to be so much information about the wrongdoings or shortcomings underneath Communist regimes, then those deaths should be contextualized by the violence and suffering that occurs in non-communist societies, in order to give the reader a fair comparison between communist societies and non-communist societies. The current “analysis” section also mentions little about the Communist Party itself or the reception of Communism worldwide.

The first section titled “reception” only provides a brief overview of public opinion of communism, something much more nuanced and globally varied due to other related political movements. Instead we could include information about the recent increase in acceptance of Marxist ideas among young people, specifically in the United States, and how Marx can be interpreted in a modern context. For instance, the ways in which Communists have historically acted as allies of marginalized peoples. (Especially during the historical and ongoing persecution of African-Americans and Mexican-Americans, in the United States, respectively).

The section “Excess deaths under Communist States” overly simplifies the complex challenges and conflicts faced by different states attempting to implement communism. Instead, we propose the addition of one subsection to cover the debate: “is violence inherent in communism?” Here, we would include the opinions of experts about whether the deaths that resulted in these communist countries were due to authoritarianism, the violent nature of revolutions themselves, or flaws in the ideology.

We do not believe that the subsection “memory and legacy” belongs under the analysis section because it reads more like a conclusion than an analysis of the memory and legacy of communism. Furthermore, the “memory and legacy” section implies that communism is a figment of the past, when there are in fact many ways in which the ideology lives on today. We recommend that this subsection either become its own section, or include a stronger focus on analyzing the impact that the memory and legacy of past instances of communism, particularly in Eastern Europe and China, has continued to have.

Communism is a complex, changing ideology. An accurate wikipedia page would include an extensive section covering the historical and ongoing debate surrounding communism. This would be beneficial for readers attempting to form their own opinions on different economic systems. In light of the recent criticism of Capitalism and push towards Communism, especially in Capitalist societies, it is fair to say that the history of Communism is still being written.

As a step toward this, we suggest the following sub-sections in the Analysis section:

(1) Why is Communism so controversial?

Communism as a political structure has been wildly controversial due to the many human rights disasters that occurred under communist rule. However, some contest whether historical communism is true to Marx’s vision. In the paragraphs below, we attempt to answer, has historically realized communism lived up to Marx’s original conceptualization of communism?

Some argue that historically realized communism cannot be deemed true communism because it failed to develop in the ultimate vision of Marx. A key discrepancy between the theory and the practice is the rise of communism in agrarian societies rather than industrialized nations. Marx hypothesized that communism could only form in a factory setting where workers could come together and recognize their situation. However, this phenomenon of workers organizing in central areas becomes very difficult in an agrarian society, where communism was typically imposed.

Marx theorized that communism would receive “from each according to his ability” and provide “to each according to his need”. In practice, communist economies were often unable to produce enough goods to satisfy their citizens. When they did, distribution issues often arose around certain scarce resources, resulting in queues and limited allocation. To combat these issues, vibrant black markets grew in communist countries around the globe. These markets, which were utilized by many inhabitants, were inherently capitalist. In this respect, the communist system failed to provide adequately for all of its people, allowing for a successful capitalist approach to take root within its own borders. Marx proposed that communism would arise from the bottom up, as the proletariat would come together to overthrow the bourgeoisie. However, communism in countries like Romania was imposed forcefully and inorganically on the proletariat via the “soviet blueprint” using a top down approach, as opposed to being adopted and embraced by the peasantry. Other perspectives like Hayek would argue that whether or not this is true communism is irrelevant, as he believes the abuse of power is the final stage in the communist life cycle. Hayek claims no matter if Communism starts with good intentions, as soon as power comes together in a few hands, the state is inevitably corrupted.Today, many Americans still think negatively of communism, but a growing younger population is neutral/supports communism/socialist policies.

(2) Creating a non-violent communist society

In the Eastern European and Chinese communist regimes, violence was a fundamental feature of the transition to communism. Occurring most prominently during the collectivization process, violence was necessary to coerce citizens to accept the new orders of the regime. With no successful examples of non-violent communist implementation, many scholars consider violence and widespread death to be an inevitable byproduct of the political ideology. The ultimate goal of communism is to reach equality for all members of a society, an objective based on humanitarian morals. As such, the prevalence of violence in such a society undermines this objective. This would need to be resolved in order for a communist society, in its essence, to be “successful.” Unfortunately, as history has proven, there is no quick or simple solution to this issue, however, there are some theoretical solutions that suggest violence may not be unavoidable in a communist society. One stipulated theory on how a communist society could be successfully formed is through the democratic election of communist rule. As true communism aims to benefit the large majority of the population, in theory, if given the option to vote for a truly communist governing model, it would garner the majority vote. In theory, communism would thus become the statutory model for society’s governance, preventing repetition of the past emergence of dictatorial rulers and totalitarian rulers. In this society, communism would rely heavily on widespread compliance with societal standards, as well as evolution through election cycles to reform issues of violence or arbitrary power abuse that may arise. Another possibility, although more abstract and less likely, is for a process by which communism could become the new social model would be through the widespread, willing relinquishment of property by society’s capitalist elite, and subsequently the equal division of these resources among the greater population. Of course, based on the idea of a society in which everyone attains the exact same amount of money and receives the exact same remuneration regardless of their contribution, workers may become disinterested with work entirely. Without new motivation, this society would risk falling into a state of inertia that would cause problems in every facet of society: the absence of necessary medical workers and treatment, a sluggish and even declining economy, and the production or harvesting of basic human goods failing to meet the needs of society being just among these. However, the functionality of a communist society without

(3) Differences between Marxist theory and the actual implementation of Communism

There are clear differences between the ideology of communism Marx expressed and real-life practices of communism throughout history. This has left many historians wondering, what went wrong? Was the failure of communism bound to happen or was the context and the largest factor? Essentially, is there hope for communism to develop and thrive in the future? As the capitalist machine turns and the bourgeoisie distances itself further from the proletariat, it is debated whether or not a communist state could compete in a world dominated by heavily capitalist countries (such as the US). Marx argued that Communism would rise in an industrialized society due to the growth of worker solidarity that came as a result of worsening working conditions as well as the proximity of factory work as well as urban living. In actuality, Communism only took hold in agrarian societies, such as Russia, China, and Romania. This contradiction between existing Communism and Marxist theory has been argued to be a major cause for many of the problems and inefficiencies that occur under Communism, especially with regards to the institutional and bureaucratic failures of Communist parties. Due to the agrarian nature of where communism took hold, much of the peasantry lacked the necessary education to effectively work in administrative/party positions.

Some argue that traditionally cited examples of “actual” communism, such as the Soviet Union and China, were not truly communist, failing to follow the Marxist ideology involving the uprising of the working class and the eventual dissolution of the state. Rather, these “communist” systems emphasized the role of the state, creating highly centralized and bureaucratic systems, and creating surveillance environments that made citizens afraid of the Party and of each other. They also created new classes, both uplifting those who had previously been marginalized and humbling those who had been privileged, but ultimately maintaining a strict hierarchy. The existence of the vanguard party that took charge and directed the working class, rather than a true grassroots revolution, meant that most citizens were not actually ideologically invested in the communist revolution and had no interest in seeing it succeed.

Why was there a divergence?

Agrarian context: Marx expected the transition to communism to occur in industrialized countries. This expectation came with urban settings being an easier environment for discussions of change to develop and the demand for a lapse of classes. In addition, a post-industrial society has ideally developed all the systems and machines necessary to survive after all the class distinctions are taken away. With this in mind, the most industrialized countries at the time (England and Germany) did not make this transition. If the Soviet Union and Romania had been industrialized before they transitioned to communism, could communism have remained? Inherent to the ideology

Hayek believed that communism was inherently doomed to fail because each individual had their own expectations for utopia. Therefore, the population would be confused by mixed messaging and vague goals. They would lose confidence in existing officials, eventually electing to give power to stronger leaders. Such a decision would ultimately end in dictatorship or brute force; the original theory of communism would be lost. In essence, a government that is based on working for the common good has no concrete plan for success, which leaves room for power-hungry members of society to take control. Hayek’s thinking directly counters the theory that prior attempts at communism have failed because of circumstance.

Competition between Capitalism and Communism Some historians have theorized that communism will only be successful without the existence of capitalism. Because communist countries are not as productive as capitalist countries, they will always be inferior in the context of global competition. Therefore, capitalist and communist countries cannot coexist, which has previously led to the failure of communism. Communist countries in competition with capitalist countries attempt to reform their systems, leading to disaster, or ultimately transition to capitalism. Expectation of violence

(4) Comparing and contrasting theoretical communism and Communist states.

Theoretical communism as opposed to Communist states Emily Morris from University College London wrote that because Karl Marx's writings have inspired many movements, including the Russian Revolution of 1917, communism is "commonly confused with the political and economic system that developed in the Soviet Union" after the revolution.[29][h] Marx’s writings theorized a utopian stateless society, but communist states followed the Leninist theory of a “vanguard party,” involving a strong state presence to enact communism onto the masses. Lenin believed that a “vanguard party” would not only protect Marxism from outside corruption, but was necessary to actually demand revolution, since the average worker was only capable of demanding small, incremental changes, referred to as “trade union consciousness.” Additionally, Marx described the shift towards communism as a natural societal evolution that would lead from capitalism to socialism to communism. However, in many existing communist states the ideology was forced onto the people rather than forming as a grassroots movement, and thus faced violent resistance. Marx believed communism would arise among industrial workers within cities, as the close quarters and long hours would give workers the opportunity to achieve class consciousness and revolt. However, communism arose in agrarian societies, such as Eastern Europe and China.

While Communist states have been extensively criticized for authoritarianism, historian Andrzej Paczkowski summarized communism as "an ideology that seemed clearly the opposite, that was based on the secular desire of humanity to achieve equality and social justice, and that promised a great leap forward into freedom."[206]

(5) Why was actually existing communism so violent?

Scholars agree that life under communism was rife with deaths and violence, but there are some potential reasons for why communism was responsible for so many excess deaths. One theory for why communism was so violent was that it is natural with any major social transformation that violence would occur. Mao alludes to this when he said that “a revolution is not a dinner party…it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle…a revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.” It can also be pointed out that the transition from oligarchy to democracy in the 18th century was also a uniquely violent social transformation (i.e. French Revolution, American Revolution). Thus, once a transition period was over, maybe communism could stabilize to a point of minimal violence and instead social harmony.

When Marx theorized where Communist revolutions would take place, he theorized that they would take place in industrializing nations. This was because it was connected to the end of feudalism and the emergence of capitalism and with it, a new property-owning class, the bourgeoisie, who hired wage-laborers to work in their businesses. However, many of the most prominent communist revolutions took place in agrarian societies, like the USSR and China. Because the property relations that Marx highlighted as key for a successful revolution were not present in these contexts, some have argued that the violence associated with these revolutions is not due to communism as an ideology, but is because those revolutionaries, like the vanguard parties in various Soviet Bloc nations, tried to bring it about before the conditions were present to enable it. What would have been organic class struggle was not there, so violence was required to get civilians to cooperate with their agendas.

(6) Lack of incentives in communist countries

Many authors comment on the lack of incentives among workers and peasants in communist countries as a key factor in the diminishing effort in their labor. Authors Kligman & Verdery in Peasants Under Siege collected first-hand accounts from respondents who lived through the process of Romanian collectivization, who pointed out the main difference between working in collectives and working individually. In collectives, “people encouraged each other to work slower, and children were taught . . . that ‘in the collective you don’t have to rush,’ ‘you don’t have to do a perfect job,’ ‘you don’t have to push yourself,’ etc. These discursive practices undermined work at the collective. In contrast, to work on your own farm, you ought to get up early, prepare yourself well, and carry out all the tasks as correctly as possible” (Bodó 2003: 50 qtd. in Kligman, Verdery 431). Not only were people not incentivized to work hard under the communist regime, but they were not even allowed to work outside their assigned areas. When working on their own farms, there were greater incentives to tend to the land with more care than when it was shared. Often, collective members would show up late for work or not at all. Furthermore, people could not sell self-made clothes or food before or after work to compensate for the low pay given by the state. This led to “the prevalence of ‘stealing’ from the collective” to make ends meet, and people even justified their theft from the collective by saying they were taking from the farm that used their land and paid too little for their labor. Ironically, this was similar to the exploitation that Marx denounced in his labor theory of value. In reality, Marxist communist theory may have been far from its real-world applications.

This lack of incentive impeded the development of communism in Romania, which, contrary to Marx’s theory of historical materialism, shows how people’s “ideas” can influence the development of history.

(7) Modern Attitudes About Communism in the United States Within the United States, there exist many limiting factors that prevent communism from being a widely accepted and desired economic ideology. The primary one being the prevailing notion of the American Dream. Given that much of American history for those who have been disenfranchised, whether that be immigrants, poor people, POC, has been riddled with those in more beneficial positions advising them that hard work and determination will allow them to achieve financial independence. Having this thought in the backdrop prevents those that are currently not satisfied with their socio-economic status to band together. They blame themselves for their lack of success instead of the overarching systems in place, which doesn’t provide the best foundation for communism to thrive. Addressing this American capitalist propaganda and its effects on the motivations of American society is essential to understanding why communism has not grown in popularity. There does exist some hope for those who identify as communist as the past few years has given rise to a significant movement to embrace more progressive policies and think more critically about the negative effects that capitalism has on our society. This is evidenced by the increasing number of protests in support of reforming and abolishing tangential capitalist structures such as the police, prisons, for-profit schools and universities, big business, big pharma, etc. More and more young adults are considering alternatives to capitalism as more education is available about how countries elsewhere in the world are running their societies and the ways in which we can reform our own society to better model equitable and just principles.

(8) Why Communism Failed

One of the main questions of the modern world is why communist states failed. While the Soviet bloc collapsed, other communist countries like China have adopted certain capitalist traits, such as privatization and their special economic zones. Even towards the end of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, the last President of the Soviet Union, adopted many capitalist ideals. Many scholars argue that the communism we’ve seen in practice isn’t what Marx had envisioned. For example, in the mid-20th century, communism largely emerged in agrarian contexts — when Marx had emphasized the importance of communist revolutions taking place in industrialized societies. The implementation of advanced technologies is required for a successful communist revolution as theorized by Marx, which has been notably absent in historical communist experiments. Likewise, communism was not a global movement like Marx had envisioned and capitalist competition from other countries threatened production. In historical examples of communism, specifically in Eastern Europe, the peasantry were not educated on communism and illiteracy ran rampant, causing ideological tensions between the aspirations of the Communist party and the reality of life under communism. Instead, leadership in Eastern Europe relied on violent coercion in order to facilitate agricultural collectivization, using special peasants called Cadres to advance their ideologies. These Cadres were similarly uneducated and often held principles that were in conflict with those of communism. In addition, some emphasize the role of leadership in collapsing communist states (also known as the one-man theory), asking whether or not communism would have been more successful if Stalin or Mao, for example, weren’t in power. Another perspective involves the economic collapse of states under the regime ultimately resulting in the fall of communism. Interference with price signals (as suggested by Federick Hayek) led to power being concentrated in the hands of few. Ultimately, this resulted in the loss of money value and scarcity of goods causing emigration, bartering and loss of incentive to work. Additionally, the Soviet economy was unable to compete directly with capitalist economies, such as the United States, and may have collapsed because of that. During his presidency, Ronald Reagan implemented a policy of arms escalation towards the USSR. He is quoted by reporter Elizabeth Drew in 1980 that, “I think the Soviet Union is probably at the very limit of its military output. It has already had to keep its people from having so many consumer goods. Instead, they're devoting it all to this military buildup… this doesn't mean that the Soviet Union escalates to twice what they're doing now… this is the last thing they want from us, an arms race, because they are already running as fast as they can and we haven't started running.”

Another possibility would be for the “Analysis” section to be retitled “Criticism” and revised in the following ways:

Suggested revisions to “Reception” (under Analysis): Western Reception Emily Morris from University College London wrote that because Karl Marx's writings have inspired many movements, including the Russian Revolution of 1917, communism is "commonly confused with the political and economic system that developed in the Soviet Union" after the revolution.[29][h] Historian Andrzej Paczkowski points out the disparity between Marx’s theorization of communist utopia versus its actual implementation: "[communism is] an ideology that seemed clearly the opposite, that was based on the secular desire of humanity to achieve equality and social justice, and that promised a great leap forward into freedom."[206] Ethnography of communism points to issues that communism’s application faced among rural peasantry. Unfamiliarity with theories of class caused strife during processes like collectivization. One Romanian party member noted that “[t]he collective farm is good if you want to have it, but if you don’t, no matter how terrific an idea it is it won’t work, because people don’t like others to order them around.”[207] The artificiality insertion of class structure into peasant life was largely perceived by poor Romanian peasants, who were viewed as having “healthy origins.” Although the Party-state had tirelessly attempted to manufacture class struggle, they failed to tear down the social relations in pre-Communist Romania. Poor peasants felt sympathy for the persecuted chiaburs, and risked punishment from Party officials to provide food and care to them. Chiaburs were revered in pre-Communist times for carrying themselves with humility and devoid of extravagance and luxury. Anti-communism developed as soon as communism became a conscious political movement in the 19th century. Reported anti-communist mass killings, perpetrated by anti-communist political orgs and governments, serve as testimony of organized and violent anti-communist mobilization that has been brewing since communism’s inception. Many of these anti-communist mass killing campaigns, which took place primarily during the Cold War,[107][108] were supported by the United States and its Western Bloc allies,[207][208] including those who were formally part of the Non-Alligned Movement, such as the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–1966 and Operation Condor in South America.[209][210] (add something abt the fact that the US commits anti-communist mass killings as well, not just supports other governments’ efforts?)

[207] Kligman & Verdery p. 100

Debate Over The Double Genocide Theory In Eastern Europe and among anti-communists in general, the "victims of Communism" narrative and the double genocide theory,[250] has become accepted scholarship and has even been incorporated in the European Union agenda,[248] for example the Prague Declaration in June 2008 and the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism, which was proclaimed by the European Parliament in August 2008 and endorsed by the OSCE in Europe in July 2009. . The narrative posits that famines and mass deaths by Communist states can be attributed to a single cause and that communism is "the deadliest ideology in history", or in the words of Jonathan Rauch "the deadliest fantasy in human history",[253] and represents the greatest threat to humanity.[254] Proponents posit an alleged link between communism, left-wing politics, and socialism with genocide, mass killing, and totalitarianism,[255] with authors such as George Watson advocating a common history stretching from Marx to Adolf Hitler.[244] Some right-wing authors allege that Marx was responsible for Nazism and the Holocaust.[256] Works such as The Black Book of Communism and Bloodlands legitimized debates on comparison of Nazism and Stalinism,[257][259] and by extension communism, and the former work in particular was important in the criminalization of communism.[132][258The Double Genocide theory, however, is widely rejected by most Western European[248] and other scholars, especially when it is used to equate Communism and Nazism, which is seen by scholars as a long-discredited perspective.[103] It has additionally been criticized by several scholars as an oversimplification and politically motivated as well as of Holocaust trivialization for equating the events with the Holocaust, positing a communist or red Holocaust.[252] Dovid Katz considers it a form of Holocaust revisionism, whose debate is prompted by a "movement in Europe that believes the crimes—morally, ethically—of Nazism and Communism are absolutely equal, and that those of us who don't think they're absolutely equal, are perhaps soft on Communism."[13] According to Katz, the double genocide theory is "a relatively recent initiative (though rooted in older apologetics regarding the Holocaust) that seeks to create a moral equivalence between Soviet atrocities committed against the Baltic region and the Holocaust in European history."[13] The term “Communist Holocaust” has been used by some state officials and non-governmental organizations to refer to mass killings under Communist states.[18][19][20] The term red Holocaust was coined by the Institute of Contemporary History (Munich Institut für Zeitgeschichte) at Munich.[21][22] Soviet and Communist studies scholar Steven Rosefielde also referred to a "Red Holocaust" for all "peacetime state killings" under Communist states.[23] According to German historian Jörg Hackmann [de], this term is not popular among scholars in Germany or internationally.[22] Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine writes that usage of this term "allows the reality it describes to immediately attain, in the Western mind, a status equal to that of the extermination of the Jews by the Nazi regime."[24][25] According to political scientist Jelena Subotić, the Holocaust memory was hijacked in post-Communist states in an attempt to erase fascist crimes and local participation to the Holocaust, and use their imagery to represent real or imagined crimes of Communist states as memory appropriation.[27]

Mass deaths under Communist states Main article: Mass killings under Communist regimes Many authors[nb 7] have written about the mass deaths and mortality rates that persisted under Communist states. Some authors suggest death tolls amounted under communist regimes range from 10 million to over 100 million. These figures have been criticized as ideologically motivated and inaccurate– incomplete data makes such estimations dubious.Higher estimates are intended to account for actions that Communist governments committed against civilians, including executions, man-made famines, and deaths that occurred during, or resulted from, imprisonment, and forced deportations and labor. [216][217][218][219][220][221] There is no consensus among genocide scholars[nb 9] and scholars of Communism about whether some or all the events that occurred under communist regimes constituted mass killing. Additionally, there is no consensus on a common terminology:[234] events have been referred to as excess mortality or mass deaths, classicide, crimes against humanity, democide, genocide, politicide, and repression.[215][nb 10] The variance of these nomenclatures in academic work makes it difficult to adjudicate the status of death under communism to any degree of certainty. Moreover, mass violence under communism was far from universal: scholars state that most communist states did not engage in mass killings.[236][nb 11]

Analysis - Suggested revisions to ‘Reception’ and ‘Excess Deaths’ sections RECEPTION The violence and hunger experienced under recent Communist regimes has centered debates of whether Communism can exist without these problems. The violence and hunger experienced under recent Communist regimes has centered debates of whether Communism can exist without these problems. Emily Morris from University College London contended that because Karl Marx's writings have inspired many movements, including the Russian Revolution of 1917, communism is "commonly confused with the political and economic system that developed in the Soviet Union" after the revolution.[29][h] Communism draws controversy in large part because critics often conflate the ideology with the actions of particular Communist states which have led to brutality and famine. Historian Andrzej Paczkowski summarized communism as "an ideology that seemed clearly the opposite, that was based on the secular desire of humanity to achieve equality and social justice, and that promised a great leap forward into freedom."[206] The communist movement has faced organized and violent opposition since it developed Anti-communism developed as soon as communism became a conscious political movement in the 19th century, and anti-communist mass killings have been reported against alleged communists and their alleged supporters. Many of these anti-communist mass killing campaigns, primarily during the Cold War,[107][108] were supported by the United States and its Western Bloc allies,[207][208] including those who were formally part of the Non-Alligned Movement, such as the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–1966 and Operation Condor in South America.[209][210]

EXCESS DEATHS Main article: Mass killings under Communist regimes Several authors have written about the correlation between excess deaths and Communist enforcement. Death estimates vary widely, such as the 30 million under Communist China’s Mao Zedong, the 20 million under Stalin’s regime, and the roughly 2 million under Pol Pot’s regime. There is debate over whether or not the causes of these deaths are rooted in Communist ideology or simply coincidence. This debate is fueled by lack of sufficient and/or accurate data (improper reporting of causes of death and governments withholding information). The deaths in China, Stalin’s USSR, and Cambodia were a result of famine, farming collectivization, and genocide respectively, those just being the majority. Other causes might have included executions, imprisonment, and forced deportation.

Genocide scholars and scholars of communism about whether some or all the events constituted a mass killing. Some scholars in particular, such as Benjamin Valentino,[241] propose the category of Communist mass killing, alongside colonial, counter-guerrilla, and ethnic mass killing, as a subtype of dispossessive mass killing to distinguish it from coercive mass killing. Scholars do not consider ideology[235] or regime-type as an important factor that explains mass killings.[242]

Some authors have argued that killings in Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union influenced killings in Mao Zedong's China, and subsequently Pol Pot's Cambodia. In all cases, killings were carried out as part of a policy of an unbalanced modernization process of rapid industrialization.[215][nb 12] Other authors allege that genocide was dictated in forgotten works of Karl Marx.[244][245] Historical revisionist views of the double genocide theory,[246][247] equating mass deaths under Communist states with the Holocaust, are popular in Eastern European countries and the Baltic states, and their approaches of history have been incorporated in the European Union agenda,[248] among them the Prague Declaration in June 2008 and the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism, which was proclaimed by the European Parliament in August 2008 and endorsed by the OSCE in Europe in July 2009. Among many scholars in Western Europe, the comparison of the two regimes and equivalence of their crimes has been and still is widely rejected.[248] Suggested subsection: Overlooked Benefits of Communism Education One benefit of collectivization and the institution of a communist system is a rapid push for education, heavily geared toward understanding the ideals and values of communism, including free institutes of higher education. As a residual benefit of this education, people in communities or populations with a low literacy rate prior to collectivization saw the institution of schools and other places of learning where intellectual freedom could be channeled through this newfound education. (pg. 412, Kligman) Mobility within jobs The communist system led to industrialization that provided opportunities for agrarian people who were previously limited to a life restricted to farming. The benefits of collectivization came in the form of new roles that individuals were allowed to play in society. (pg. 410, Kligman) Labor laws The labor laws of communism led to more time for workers to spend time at home or in the community, which led to stronger community ties and more time for parents spent on average with their children. The absence of the need for individuals to take multiple jobs led to more freedom for individuals to pursue their own interests and not have to deal with the detrimental health effects of work exhaustion or even death by overwork, which is a feature of many of the most labor hour-intensive capitalist systems. (pg. 291, Kligman) Feminist Opportunities The communist ideology brought not only job freedom for those already in the workforce, but also created opportunities for women. No longer occupied with childcare (as outlined in the community engagement section), women were provided jobs of all ranks. Women had opportunities outside the home as telephone operators, postal workers, sales clercs. Women had opportunities in party leadership including a celebrated GAC president as early as the 1950s. Compare with the contemporary United States where women were pushed out of the workforce by men returned from war. Community engagement A benefit of the communist structure is an increase in contact between families who share in the same commune. Due to the inherent cooperative nature of communes, children from different families are subject to more contact with each other. As a result, parents are more able to understand and watch over the development of children from outside the family. This leads to the benefit of more parental figures outside of the traditional two-parent family unit. Eliminating the individualistic element of capitalist child rearing leads to less of an emphasis on raising children to bring about individual success. Communal living comes with communally-held beliefs that are conducive to the success of the collective as opposed to the success of one individual or one family. This feature of communist society supplements the lack of commodification of childcare, which results in outcomes where parents have less control of the core values and the individuals to which children are raised in close proximity and habituated to accept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.111.60 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This section is pro-communist POV designed to whitewash mass murders, it implies there is Eastern European minority view that is historical revisonism and contrasts with supposed views of Western European scholars, even though it is peppered with references at a glance those seem to be scraped together to prove a point e.g. article claims a view is rejected by most Western scholars, but is referencing critique of a single documentary film, which rather refers to "various researchers of different nationalities", when thorough review of academic literature on communism would be appropriate source for statement on what most scholars think 2A03:EC00:B14C:1AA1:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The idea that communism as an ideology is directly linked to these mass murders is still heavily disputed by scholars, historians, and academics. X-Editor (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Why are we getting dragged into this 'mass murders' red herring? From the point of view of:-

(a) those who consider that the USSR, China et.al. were not Communist, but State Capitalist. From this standpoint the mass murders were not the result of communism but capitalism. Therefore no point to debate.

(b) those who consider that the USSR, China et.al. were communist. Which is the greatest evil, a mass murder of 1,000 people or 1,000 individual murders? Capital must recognise itself as the pot calling the kettle black on this issue. These murders are not a distinctive issue of Communism, that is to recognise them as a feature of Communism one must also recognise them as a feature of Capitalism. Or Feudalism & Classical society for that matter. This feature can not be attributed to any particular system and addressing the matter only serves to obfuscate the real debate.

Thus 'mass murders' is a red herring to be put aside. kimdino (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Regardless of what was written here as a suggested replacement, it's fairly obvious that the Analysis section has serious issues. Foremost, what is the analysis of? Communism can mean many things. Marx's writings exclusively? The ideological tenets of communism? It might also be analysis of communism's critique of capitalism. It's fine that the analysis is of communism as it's been implemented by self-identifying communist states, but as other discussions in the talk section show, that also raises important issues regarding how unconditionally those states should be treated as examples of communism, and definitely requires some greater clarity.

Similarly, the subheaders are unclear or even misleading. Notably the reception section. The word reception on its own begs the question of whose reception the page is referring to. This isn't an article for a TV show, so it's not obvious what audience is being referred to. The reception section is a pretty sweeping history, with generalizations like "Karl Marx's writings have inspired many movements" (which?), "communism echoes controversial reactions" (among whom?), or "The communist movement has faced opposition since it was founded and the opposition to it has often been organized and violent" (opposition by whom, and how often?). This is not specific to the reception section, but it obviously doesn't meet editorial standards.

There is obvious bias in which authors and perspectives are represented in the section, with nearly all being critical of communism. The fact that they include responses doesn't legitimize these authors' inclusion. If academic consensus is that these authors' claims are wrong, then their claims shouldn't be included in the first place unless they are extraordinarily relevant to the discourse at hand. Similarly, why does the analysis section have no analysis of the positive effects of communist states? This isn't an attempt to trivialize academically proven mass killings, but rather a question as to why any investigation into those positives are excluded (i.e. rapid industrialization or drastic improvement in life expectancy among nearly all communist states). If the analysis section already (justifiably) includes the fact that academic consensus is against the Naziism-Communism conflation, then it's worthwhile to include both sides of a controversial discourse.

The "Excess deaths under Communist states" subsection is badly written overall. It jumps between academic analysis of deaths and popular opinion of communism with no real differentiation of reliability, which is made worse by the fact that the paragraphs have terrible flow with the continued issue of ambiguous writing ("Historical revisionist view... is popular in Eastern European countries and the Baltic states," or "Many commentators on the political right point to the mass killings under communist regimes" are examples). The unreasonable number of lengthy notes is a pretty clear indication that the section would be unacceptably ambiguous without them.

Lastly, regarding the "Memory and Legacy" subsection, the inclusion of the victims of communism narrative seems to direct the focus away from analysis of communism into analysis of responses to communism. It's irrelevant, especially when it already has its own section in another article. Also, the inclusion of the Black Book of Communism's 100 million estimate is unrealistic, considering that number is also controversial and almost all other scholars in the field have lower numbers. Considering the ideological motivation of the book's authors, it would be best to leave it out. The section in its entirety is honestly out of place, considering it isn't relevant to analysis of communism, but rather a description of Marxism-Leninism's legacy among a very specific subset of people who lived in communist states.

Apologies for the badly structured post, I don't edit or talk on Wikipedia often. The issues I'm pointing out aren't controversial editorial expectations, though. 2601:249:8780:4CE0:A92E:F1A5:278:AB08 (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Minor Page edit.

Last sentence in paragraph 2 of the Excess Deaths section

"Scholars do not consider ideology[242] or regime-type as an important factor that explains mass killings.[249]"

Should be changed to:

"While scholars do consider regime-type as an important factor in the frequency of mass killings, Communist ideology only effects the severity."[249][242]"

with respect to reference 242. This is the final sentence of the reference's conclusion:

"It would therefore appear (assuming for the moment that there are not any big measurement biases) that autocratic regimes, especially communist, are prone to mass killing generically, but not so strongly inclined (i.e. not statistically significantly inclined) toward geno-politicide"

As such Wayan & Tago find that being a communist regime as a subset of autocratic regimes IS an important factor in mass killings; that is to say the ideology of the particular autocratic regime being communist is relevant.

Earlier in the paper Wayan and Tago point out that the frequency of mass killings under communism is not statistically higher than other autocratic regimes, they just have far higher body counts. The wording of that section may have been what confused the point for the person who wrote the sentence in this article.

Essentially the Ideology of autocratic regimes in particular does not effect the frequency of the mass killings, but DOES effect the size of the mass killings. While ANY autocratic regime influences the frequency.

with respect to reference 249. it is just a book review of 6 books. Not even a systematic review, and does not preport to be be one. The entire reference is just one learned mans opinion expressing disagreement with 6 other learned opinions. While it can be cited for its arguments, it cannot by cited as evidence of a consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAuthoritativeSource (talk • contribs) 21:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2022

there are some edits Mike jordonethebest (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022

I thought it was disgraceful to see that the Wikipedia page for Communism had no page about the criticism for it when Fascism has a page for Criticism, so I wanted to make a request for editing Communism to add the criticism of Communism. Michaelpaul2004 (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

If you allow me to make the needed changes to this Wikipedia page, I would surely make Wikipedia a more trusted and non-partisan source. Because that is what I wish for Wikipedia to be. I believe Wikipedia is bias towards one side of the isle. Michaelpaul2004 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems redundant. We already have an article on Criticism of communist party rule, and another on Criticism of Marxism. Dimadick (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Criticism should be incorporated into main sections. For example, a section on government owned industry should mention why some people think this is a good idea and others don't. It is redundant to create two more sections, praise of communism and criticism of communism, to repeat these observations. TFD (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)