Template talk:Communism sidebar/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Communism sidebar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This template suffers from the same "Enormous Length Syndrome" that once plagued Template:Liberalism sidebar. We don't need to include every single article related to communism - just the most important ones. For example, exotic theoretical varieties such as Juche, or politically insignificant countries such as Albania and Laos, do not belong here. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:02, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That makes sense.

After a few rounds of change, the template is still very long. Perhaps we should do away with the list of communist personalities entirely? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:55, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mackensen came to me with a great idea the other day -- I'm going to change it into a horizonal template rather than a vertical one. That way it will fit on even the shorter pages and not distend the page to the hideous length it would now. I think I'll do that now, actually, so you wont have to wait. --Oceanhahn 09:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it's very important to include Juche. It may be an exotic theorectical variety, but it is the ruling philosophy over twenty-two million people, and is therefore hardly insignificant. The DPRK is in the news almost daily because of its policies that are led by Juche. How often is Tortskyism in the news? How many people are ruled by Trotskyite governments? Dafyddyoung 12:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removals

Juche and North Korea were removed. Why? I replaced them, but I was curious to know why they were removed in the first place. --Oceanhahn 10:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Because they're not worthy of note. In order to avoid overcrowding the template, we should only include variants of Communism that are upheld by at least two Communist Parties. Juche is upheld by only one, and it has mutated so much that it would be better categorized as a spin-off ideology rather than a variant of Communism. As for North Korea, I removed it because we can't possibly include every Communist Party-led state, and if we're going to remove some from the list, they might as well be the ultra-isolationist and downright weird ones like North Korea and Albania. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for letting me know. --Oceanhahn 09:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If Juche is removed, I think anarcho-communism ought to be removed. Juche is a form of communism just as much as Maoism is a form of communism. However, there has never been a state ruled by anarcho-communists, nor has there ever been a successful anarcho-communist party. Furthermore, if Juche is removed because it is a "weird" form of communism, Stalinism ought to be removed, because, as the Marxism-Leninism article states: "'Stalinism', strictly speaking, refers to a style of government or political practice in general, rather than an ideology per se." Finally, I find it strange that we have all three: Marxism, Leninism, and Marxism-Leninism listed in the template. The third is not distinct enough from the first two to stay.

Moreover, why is the communist party of North Korea not a "classical" communist party, when it has had a much greater effect than the communist parties of Western Europe have *ever* had? —thames 18:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Horizontalization

I'll start by saying that i know 'horizontalization' is not a word. It just seemed to descibe the change the best. I rebuilt the template the template into a horizontal version to save space on the smaller pages, however, as you may have noticed, it became very very ugly and misshapen along the way. I'd love to stay and fiddle with the finer points of this labyrinth of code I've spun up, but it's late and I think there are those who are better able to do it out there. (Also, I'm sleepy.) The changes seem to have taken fairly well in the linked pages I looked at, but the ugliness of the thing remains. If anyone thinks they can improve this new format -- perhaps by reverting it -- I'd encourage them to go right ahead. A change I toyed with was the number of columns within each heading, and the differences between 1-row (Very wide but very short. Came out funny lookin') and 2-row (The squatter version in use at the time of this edit) overall styles. On the whole, I consider this an improvement in spacial utilization, but a catastrophic defeat for aesthetics. --Oceanhahn 10:20, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) Comments?

Also, the new-format template is probably better placed at the BOTTOM of pages it's installed on; this means that it will have to be moved. I'll do this in some places, but if you see one I've missed, please, fix it if you feel so inclined. Thanks! --Oceanhahn 10:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the horizontal thing is a good idea. To work the template has to be at the bottom of the page which means fewer people will see it (if it's a sidebar then everyone sees it, a the bottom you only see it if you scroll all the way to the bottom). Also, it seems that on most pages it's still at the top which completely shuts out the article unless you know enough to scroll down. I'm reverting to the sidebar verson. Let's discuss it first before changing it again!AndyL 12:57, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I dont mind you reverting it, but it's just as bad to change it back without asking as to change it in the first place. Furthermore, I created this thing, and I didnt think anyone would minds since it was too long as it was and as a result, got in the way. Oh well. "I guess the people just liked it better that way..."

Let's discuss it first before reverting it again! --Oceanhahn 09:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New idea

This template currently contains the following sub-sections:

Communist ideologies and philosophies
Past and present states ruled by Communist Parties
Some Communist personalities throughout history
Other Articles [related to communism]

What if we broke it up into several separate templates? That would solve the length problem... Of course, some changes in the current sections would have to be made. For example, a template on "Other articles related to communism" would be completely out of place ("other articles" besides what?), so perhaps this section should be kept in the same template as the first.

Another idea would be to remove communist personalities and communist states from the template completely, and just have a link to a List of Communists and links to the main articles Communist State, Comecon, and Warsaw Pact. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Although the template needs to be shortened, I think that it is also very possible to abbreviate it too much. "Other Articles" refers simply to any information that doesnt fit into one of the other three headings. They can be renamed or rearranged as it is necessary, but to remove any whole topic seems a little severe. I also dont like the idea of closing it down to four or five headings --the examples given are expecially narrow; Communist State only covers actual countries, and both Comecon and Warsaw Pact refer only to the Soviet era. The changes you've laid out, while valid, are extremely restrictive.

A pitfall of making several templates is that it could exchange the 'Too much text!' problem into a 'Too many articles!' problem. If that is kept in mind, then perhaps divinding the already ambigious term "Communism" into I'd say AT MOST FOUR HEADINGS could solve the problem -- say "Communism" (As a primary list of main articles -- Communist Ideologies if it's ever completed, Communism if it's ever made into a GOOD ARTICLE, Communist States with a little neatening up, and a List of Communist Articles which hasnt been created yet.), "Soviet Union" (Comecon, Warsaw Pact, Vladimir Lenin, other articles of this nature), and others as you see fit. Just speculation. Alternatively, they could be sorted in the manner they are now, but into separate templates -- "Communist Personalities", "Communist Party-led States", "Communism: Variants" and "Communism: Topics" (the last being a primary list of major articles)

That having been said, I DO support the idea of making a new (another) page which constitutes a list of links to Communist-related pages, or reforming one if such an article exists already if such is needed.

I'm rather partial to the idea of forming a Category could be formed.

Maybe I'm just restating your suggestion; I dont know. What did you think of the horizontal version, by the way?

--Oceanhahn 09:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorter template and other issues

It seems that everybody is agreed that this template needs shortening, so why not take out the not very pretty picture of the hammer and sickle? That would shorten it by about 1/8th without losing anything important.

Hmmm, that is a rather good idea... Although I personally think the H&S is very pretty. :) -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would also lose a lot of the links to various communist figures and communist states and rather do something like this:

This article is part of the Communism series of entries.

Communist ideologies and philosophies

Marxism
Leninism
Trotskyism
Stalinism
Maoism
Left communism
Anarcho-Communism
Right Opposition
Left Opposition

(Should Marxism be in this list; I personally don't think this can be classified as a subset of communism? The same goes for Trotskyism, which is more definately an off-shoot of Marxism/communism, but often defines itself as something other than in the communist tradition as exemplified by the USSR, traditional communist parties etc.)

Communist States
List of Communists
List of Communist parties

--Martin Wisse 22:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, Marxism has to be listed because it is the ideological foundation of communism, obviously. As for Trotskyism, you seem to have a highly distorted picture of it. Trotskyism defines Stalinism as an off-shoot of Marxism/communism. And Trotskyism defines itself as the communist tradition. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I opt that Anarcho-Communism should be deleted from the template. In spite of its name, Anarcho-Communism does not belong to the communist tradition. Anarcho-Communism evolved as a tendency within the Anarchist movement, rather than as a splitt-off from the main communist movement. That ought to function as a line of demarcation for the template. Anarcho-Communism has a place in the Anarchism template. --Soman 21:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it needs to be in both, as it is one of the major communist tendencies today. There is collapse accross the board within the communist movement, since the collapse of the soviet union, but anarcho-communism is on a massive upswing. To remove it would make the template a treatment of history and nothing more.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 03:32, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

'Massive upswing'??? I what world do you live in? Anyway, my point is that Anarcho-Communism does not share any organical link to the rest of the communist movement. It should be treated as a subsection within the Anarchist movement. --Soman 07:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Quebec is one of the only places up here that has a serious communist movement, and it is people like NEFAC who are leading it. Yes, they are growing. As for organic link... umm like what? I work in a coalition with them, and the organization I work for is trotskyist, so would that count? I think any attempt to take them off, since they are one of very few still growing sections of the communist movement, would be POV.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 17:39, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

By organic link I mean direct historic connection, i.e. that the tendency would have its roots in the communist movement. Also, I'm by no means impressed about the "growth" of Anarcho-Communism. Quebec/Canada has one of the weakest left movements in the entire world, and being a "big" group there doesn't mean very much in international comparison. Where is anarcho-communism in Latin America? In Asia? In Africa? Even in Europe it is largely absent, and in decline. Take the Anarcho-Communist Federation in UK or Alternative Libertaire in France, hardly groups in progress. --Soman 17:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Modern anarcho-communism's roots stem from the platformist tradition of Nestor Makhno. The Makhnovist movement began on board with the russian revolution and events propelled the two sides into adversarial relationships. Bolshevik vs. Makhnovist. Much like Stalinist vs. Trotskyist. Point is, there is an organic link to the communist movement. Regardless, they are communists, and communists whose influence on events is actually growing in some areas of the world, so they must remain.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 18:18, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Unsettling Trend

I don't like where this is going. Let's leave it as it is, and if it doesn't fit on a page, then we'll just have to link to it. The way things are headed, we'll argue and argue and this -- like every other heated debate I've seen here -- until the article is thoroughly destroyed. Already the hammer and sickle is gone (an image which fit quite nicely in the horizontal version, I might add...) Frankly, I was happy with the horizontal version -- you can see it in the history, but at least (although I suspect ONLY) one person didnt like it, so it was killed. Pity; I was quite proud of it, too... Anyway, I'm going to pout some more and lement my lost horizontal template... *sob* Good luck finding a solution. -- Oceanhahn 08:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is long, ugly, incomplete, arbitrary, lacking meaningful integrity: the only thing that unites it is the word "communism". There are reasonable suggestions here, to be implemented:

to split
to horizontalize the pieces
to use small font, see, e.g., template:CEG: you cannot tell that it lists 54 (Fifty Four!) items.

Mikkalai 21:20, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Template:Communism should be nice and clear to list the ideology itself, without this bullshit about western usage of the term. It can be left vertical.
Template:Communist parties, with entries, kind of: <small>[[Communist Party of the Soviet Union | Soviet Union]]</small> Must be horizontal.
Template: Communist Theoreticians, to list only those who contributed to theory. Fidel Castro is notable, but so is John Reed, but then there are hundreds of such. Horizontal.
Template:Communist states: bad name. Any ideas? Horizontal.
I don't think there is a necessity for Template:Other for anti-communism and the rest.
Template:Communist leaders: is it really neceessary? Can it be imbedded into template:communist parties?

Mikkalai 21:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I endorse your idea. The only thing I have to add is that things like Anti-Communism and the rest of the "other" category should be included in the main communism template. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:31, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A simple change, making a link to a list of communist party-led states, would be more than enough to cut its size. That's all it needs in my opinion.--Che y Marijuana 23:02, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

template changes

For communist ideologies, can someone explain to me what the difference between the Left Opposition and Trotskyist ideologies were? I've removed Left Opposition and Right Opposition. Those were factional fights, not ism's. Ruy Lopez 04:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, I think it makes more sense to list Communist parties, including important ones that never gained state power (PCI, PCF...), than prominent communists. Listing prominent communists instead of prominent communist parties sounds like something people in a society in the grip of some kind of Führerprinzip would do.

Changes

1.) The state Libya has been added 2.) I've chnged the appellation "communist state" because there have never been a communist state. First it have to become socialism and then commnunism. Socialism ist only a bridging to communism.

Muammar Gaddafi nor Robert Mugabe are not Marxists. -- Vít Zvánovec 18:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Muammar Gaddafi and Robert Mugabe are not Marxists, much less communists. On a related note, while the Chilean communist party played a significant role in Salvador Allende's Unidad Popular coalition, calling his government a communist state is incorrect. Allende himself was a Socialist, an important distinction while we are making lists. Accordingly I have removed:

Chile (1970-1973)

Libya (1969-present)
and

Zimbabwe (1980-present)

from this list of communist states. Some of the other entries may be arguable too (Nicaragua, as an example) but I leave that to someone else with more information. On the other hand, I'd keep Albania, as tiny and marginal as it may be, along with the PRK. 24.126.41.116 01:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) aka Italo Svevo

Is there any reason why Mikkalai seems to be deleting the "Burma" entry from the list of communist states? Can Mikkalai provide evidence to the contrary that Burma (between 1974 and 1988) was not ruled by a single party professing a socialist course and why it shouldn't be included in the list, since of course a "communist state" is an oxymoron and there is no list for "socialist states" (and also since there is little more to go by than having a single ruling party profess its adherence to socialism or communism)?

Burma was not communist. Period. The same as with Chile. The word "Socialism" has way too many shades. Nazi party called itself "socialist". Mikkalai 03:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I take it then that you haven't read the article on the Burma Socialist Programme Party? You also cannot compare Chile to Burma. In Chile a communist was elected to office and other legal parties were allowed and the name of the state was never officially changed. In Burma, the socialist party was the only legal party and they changed the name of the state to reflect this. That is like comparing Italy to North Korea. Surely in Italy the communists were popular around 1946, but Italy wasn't communist. In North Korea, the communist party is the only legal party and the name of the state reflects its form of government. As for the Nazi's, though there name had "socialist" in it and it was the only legal party, the loophole in your example is that the Nazis were rabidly anti-communist/ anti-socialist and this was stated as much numerous times by several leading members of the party, not to mention in their printed material. So it can't really be socialist if it is anti-socialist, now can it? (whereas Burma's party incorporated marxist and buddhist influences, rather like Mao's instillation of "Chinese values"). Your example would most likely cause offence to anyone in a true socialist party. And the mirror image to that example is that the DPRK calls itself "democratic", which would imply that "democracy" has many shades as well. If you can so clearly distinguish communist from socialist from nazi from fascist, then please explain as to why an entire article on "communist" states does not list a single state that ever incorporated the word "communist" into its official title. Why are there "socialist" republics listed in the article when as you say "socialism" has way too many shades? Also, if you look, you will find that (except in revolutionary Russia) there are no other states on the planet which did what Burma did and would not be called socialist. There is only one other "socialist" republic in the Indian subcontinent I know of and that is Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka's name may have socialist in it, but the socialist party is certainly not the only legal party, hence it cannot be a socialist state. Don't be so quick to judge (like you were with Grenada (Granada is in Spain)). Just because Burma may not have been one of the more newsworthy of the socialist states, doesn't mean that it wasn't one, even briefly. Saying that "Burma wasn't socialist. Period." does nothing to provide evidence of what Burma was. Now if you like you may check these internet sites: http://www.mizzima.com/about-burma/ and http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=52611 and http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Myanmar.htm and for other countries: http://www.worldstatesmen.org/

Was Burma ruled by communist party or party alleged to any shade marxism? Mikkalai 05:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Read the article on the Burma Socialist Programme Party. Also you might want to check the discussion in the article "communist state". Did you also check any of the links listed above or are they just going to sit there and look pretty? Essentially, a country doesn't have to be ruled by a party whose official title is the "communist party of [country name here]". As a matter of fact, here is a part of the discussion from the article "communist state": ....A google search of "Socialist Burma" will even bring up an Encyclopaedia Britannica article (or the stub of one, if you don't subscribe) which deals with what the writers of the Encyclopaedia refer to as "the socialist takeover". see: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=52611 If Encyclopaedia Britannica acknowledges a "socialist Burma", then why the trouble here? Doesn't everyone wish for Wikipedia to become one of the most accurate and comprehensive encyclopaedias in the world? And how can that be achieved if it refuses to take for fact what older, well established (and heavily researched) printed encyclopaedias already have? Now what is strange is that the body of the article goes on to outline what is or is not a communist state and then when Burma drops into that definition, it is labelled as not being socialist/communist. After all "a communist state is a state ruled by a single political party which declares its allegiance to the principles of Marxism-Leninism." So Burma was ruled by a single political party from 1974 to 1988 which declared as its aim to try to lead Burma to true Socialism (in the most common sense of the word) and drew on marxist and buddhist influences[this being from the article on the BSPP] (similar to China and its use of communism with a chinese face or values, or Khruschev's many roads to socialism). Then in the article we have "The term communist state originated from the fact that most of the states in question were or are ruled by parties that called themselves "Communist Party of [country]". Thus, they became known as Communist Party-ruled states, or simply communist states. However most of these states called themselves socialist, since in Marxist political theory, socialism is the intermediate stage in reaching communism, which is a condition with no state, so that communist state is considered an oxymoron." So if there really is no such thing as a "communist state" and there only socialist states, then what is the problem with Burma? Also, was it not true that some "communist states" were ruled by parties that did not call themselves "communist parties" but had such titles as "people's revolutionary party", "workers' party", "social democratic and labour party", "socialist unity party", "labour party" and "revolutionary socialist party"? Would states ruled by these parties somehow be disqualified from being "communist parties? No, the article says as much. Under the section of "What is or isn't a "communist state", a splendid definition of what constitutes such a state is outlined and Burma was "a state where a Communist Party (or some other communist group) held power within the context of a single-party system of government." since the Burma Socialist Programme Party was the sole legal party (or the single party) from 1974 to 1988. So either accept that Burma was a socialist/communist state for just 14 years or change the definition (which would probably mean cutting known communist states from the list such as North Korea, Ethiopia, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, Munich, Mongolia, Poland, Afghanistan, Albania, GDR, Hungary (1949-1990)....)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communist_state"

I don't care how you or ~~other~~ anticommunists twist and stretch definitions. Burma's party goal was not building of communism, no matter what you say. Socialism not necesarily a step towards communism. I don't care what you may find elsewhere. The only thing relevant here are articles immediately about Burma and its parties. None of them mentions communism AFAIK. Mikkalai 22:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"I don't care". Hmmm...seems to sum up nicely your opinion. I haven't twisted definitions. look for yourself and show me where I have stretched it. Also, since when was socialism not a step towards communism? Didn't all communist governments state that socialism was the step towards full stateless communism?

It is opinion of comm govts. Others may have other opinions. Mikkalai 23:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And the article on the BSPP does mention Marxism. As I said, read it for yourself.

I did. Quoting: ...both marxist and Buddhist influences means zilch. Are you going to deduce from this also that Burma was a Religious state (or how do you call them)? Also, don't you know that marxism rejects religion? Mikkalai 23:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By the way, why do you label me an anticommunist for simply pointing out that Burma seems to have had a socialist dictatorship and may have been at the least quasi-marxist? Also

"anticommunist". Sorry. the word "other" was out of place. I am indifferent to your political positions.

did you mean to say that only articles on wikipedia have any relevance to this discussion and that Encyclopaedia Britannica is just useless?

EB does not have our NPOV policy. Besides, you write yourself that EB uses the term "soc", not "com". Mikkalai 23:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I will no longer interfere. Bye. Mikkalai 23:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's proper to include Burma either. Unless they explicitly put Communism as their eventual goal, listing here would be dubious.--Che y Marijuana 00:57, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is true that the mix of marxist and buddhist influences is perplexing, but I thought it was along the same lines as the Chinese modifying Marxism with some of the ideals of Confucius and with Chinese values, or with some of the African parties instilling some traditional local values into their "brand" of marxism. The BSPP had explicitly put "True Socialism" as its eventual goal, so it doesn't appear that dubious to me, however if everyone thinks that Burma's listing is dubious (as opposed to ludicrous) then why not list it in a separate category so that other viewers may read it, search for more info and then make up their own minds? By the way, I never meant to appear rude, and I am sorry if I did, however having endeavoured hard to try to find all the one-party socialist ruled states to make this article even more correct, I couldn't understand why some entries were being deleted with little or no reason being stated.

parties

Most of this template is a listing of "communist states" (a phrase which is paradoxical). It was not like this before, and it is POV, a listing of the communist parties of countries is the more proper thing, some of them which took power, and some which didn't. Like it was before. Ruy Lopez 07:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the term "Marxist-Leninist states" would be better, but if it has to be one or the other a list of countries is more useful than a list of parties. Firstly, the list of states included links to important countries that are no longer listed under parties. Secondly, if a party list is to include communist parties that never came to power then it would be extraordinarily long. I think just about every country has had at least one communist party.

Personally I think it might be better to have neither list but simply links to the communist party and communist state articles. I think the lists are unnecessary and make the template unwieldy.

Ruy Lopez's change should probably be reverted until some other contributors weigh in and maybe there is a consensus. Iota 03:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Either list of major organizations, which means it would include el topo obrero (the trotskyists working with chavez in venezuela) and some other non-stalinist organizations (rather than the parties which are generally of the bureaucratic tradition), or no list at all.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 08:10, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

There's no way one could list all Communist parties, let alone all organizations. A list of all countries is probably not necessary either, but maybe we could shorten it to just the current ones and the Soviet Union? Anyway, it's not a bad idea to make room for more articles on broad concepts.--Pharos 08:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, we'd only include important communist organizations. Say, the historically important ones, USSR and China, and the currently revolutionary ones, aka, the ones in a position to grab power or who already have plenty of power ina revolutionary situation. Say the maoist party in nepal, pakistan, the topo obrero in venezuela, etc...?-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 09:31, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

The Communist Party of the USA should not be in the template. The USA is a major copuntry, but Communism has never even had a minor impact on US politics. I mean, the US has never even had a Socialist party big enough to win a broad-based election; the impact of the Communist party has been negligible.

Space-saving design

I'm trying to start a trend away from the space-wasting and advertising-like logos on the -ism templates. Mirror Vax 18:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with removing the hammer and sickle logo. Not only because it saves space, but also because it is POV. It is the symbol of Western communists and specifically of the USSR, but it isn't the symbol of Eastern communists, or other communists around the world. Until a less POV logo can be found--one that is truly representative of international communism--the hammer and sickle should be removed. —thames 03:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Not all communists use the hammer & sickle. Still though its clearly the most identifiable symbol of the communist movement in the world. I would like to know which "eastern communist" that don't use it. Chinese CP use it, all Indian parties use it (and actively), arab communists use it, etc. Rather one could say that its usage has declined dramatically in Western Europe. --Soman 13:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I think something less associated with the specifics of the Soviet Union would be a better representation. The Red star I think is more universal and less associated with a specific country's history. —thames 14:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

How about a rotating stable of symbols? Red Star, Hammer and Sickle, Machete and Gear (as in the flag of Angola), Arm and Hammer (maybe), etc. DJ Silverfish 15:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

How could a rotation be made? AFAIK wikimedia software doesn't really support that kind of javascript-intensive usage. I just think that the hammer and sickle, while certainly recognizable, is associated almost immediately with the USSR (even if other communists use it in limitede circumstances). However, the red star is used and adopted all over the place, and is also quite recognizably communist symbology. —thames 15:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually the hammer and sickle is far more identifiable as a symbol of communism, and at least of communist parties. The red star has a more general symbolism,oftyen used by youth and other front organizations rater than the communist parties themselves.

Of the major CPs today, most use hammer n sickle in their party symbol. Example:

Delete Anarcho-Communism

I still favour the deletion of Anarcho-Communism from the template. It is not a "school of communism" (which btw is not an accurate term) or a subdivision of it. The article itself clearly states that it is to be considered as a particular branch of libertarian socialism. Also, AC emerged as a separate tendency long before the creation of the modern communism movement. The demarcation of the template can not be the First International (which would then also include Social Democracy and Anarchism in general) but the emergence of the Bolshevik line, from which all modern communist "schools" traced their background. --Soman 15:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It is a school of communism, and in fact, although it may be championed by certain people within liberterian socialism, it still does not change the fact. It can also be argued that the Bolsheviks are in fact not actual communists, because of their authoritarian style in implementing an economy, and I vehemently disagree that all "modern communist schools" trace their background to them. And what "modern communist movement"? The communist movement emerged around in the 1800's, around the same time anarchism did, and in fact I see no clear distinction between communism and anarchism - they have the same goal, if not the same means. -- Natalinasmpf 08:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

It may certainly be a school of communism, but the question is whether or not it belongs in the template. The template serves to be a quick reference to people wishing to understand the basics about Communism--it's not supposed to be a collection of all the communism-related articles. Anarcho-communism has no historical relevance or notability. Anarcho-communists have never achieved anything even close to the other listed communist groups, have never had a following even remotely similar, ever had a party with significant representation in a parliament anywhere, or ever had control of a country. It's a joke to put anarcho-communism alongside the communist schools that actually had some sort of effect on world history. If people are interested, they can dig through the articles on communism and stumble upon the anarcho-communism article, but it does not belong next to the other articles in the template. The template is for essentials only. —thames 23:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Your ignorance is appalling. Anarcho-communism is one of few schools of communism that are growing today, and was a big part of both the russian and spanish revolutions. Anarcho-communism traces its modern roots from the platformist tradition of nestor makhno, who began fighting side by side with the revolution, before hostilities opened up between the bolsheviks and the anarchists of makhno who had taken over the ukraine. It is very important to include anarcho-communism here, because it was this split between the makhnovists and the bolsheviks is really where the modern division between Marxism and Anarchism comes from. Makhno's anarchists even set up soviets and fought the white army. So remain it must.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 01:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

And let me remind Thames of something: does communism and anarchism necessarily need to gain sovereignty and global recognition from the rest of the capitalist powers for it to be significant? Isn't it plausible that physical movements exist within countries? Must an anarchist movement seize control of a state in order to be recognised as notable? After all, isn't the entire idea of communism and anarchism against the very concept of nationalism? Do you need a nation to form a society? Isn't a nation theoretically in communist terms a superficial concept dreamt up by power-brokers to bind the people to a tyrannical government that controls the land they live in they otherwise would have no loyalty to? Aren't anarchists against this very concept? Have you noticed the revolutions that still occur across Europe and Asia? Perhaps you have not noticed all the rebellions that are going on? Sure, most of them are separatist movements, but if you follow the news closely, you can clearly see what is slowly emerging. Anarchists needn't necessarily need to declare a state in order to be "official". Doesn't a parliament and a political party, or a leader with more power than the rest of the members of the movement (as opposed to just say, a speaker or an advocate) undermine the very idea that anarchism stands for? Why then, would they want to participate in a state or a parliament? Why would they want to form an "anarcho-communist party"? It would be oxymoronic - non-participation in the state doesn't mean they are insignificant. And no historical relevance? Must I remind you of say, Emma Goldman and hmm the Spanish Civil War? Anarcho-communists seek to skip the initial "dictatorship of the proleteriat" stage and make preparations for a direct transition to actual communism, because the principle is guess what: authoritarian governments like that of the Bolsheviks lead to tyranny. And this principle certainly has a widespread following - the only reason you haven't seen it overpowering a state yet is that they certainly have more compassion and ethics than the Bolsheviks did, sure revolution may be slower, but it won't provide a vehicle ripe for hijacking. Of course whether it works is an entirely different premise - but certainly it has had a widespread following. -- Natalinasmpf 02:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Look, you haven't provided a single reason why Anarcho-communism is notable. There are no references to anarcho-communists in the press. I've never seen nor heard of anarcho-communists on CNN, the NYTimes, etc. If people want to learn about communism, which is the purpose of the template, 99.999% don't care about a theoretical group that never accomplished anything. Totskyism has its importance and place in history. You can learn about them on the History Channel--they were important. Nobody knows who the anarcho-communists are, where they are, what they've accomplished, or what their programs are. The wikipedia article on anarcho-communism doesn't even have that information. To put anarcho-communism alongside the major schools of communist that have actually had an effect on world-history is a gross distortion. The template is supposed to serve as a link to the most notable and useful topics in communism--anarcho-communism is not one of them. Go to Amazon.com and look up "anarcho-communism": the result? Zero hits. Books on Anarcho-Syndicalism are the only things that show up. Anarcho-communism has never been in the news, it's a footnote in the history books, it's not in any current literature or academic publishings--in short, it doesn't belong in the template alongside Marxism, Trotskyism, Leninism, Eurocommunism, or Left-Communism (all of which have dozens if not hundreds of hits in Amazon). —thames 04:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The Communist movement in general has barely made it to the news over the past 10 years! If you want to look at anarcho-communism, you can't give me some amazon search as your evidence, the facts on the ground show that anarcho-communism is notable. In north america for example, there are a few small sections of the communist movement that are gaining any ground. Most of that activity is centered around a few particular trotskyist groups, and the anarcho-communist federations. Of those the most notable is NEFAC. Whereas years ago you had the black bloc being the centre of all radical activism up here, today we see this bloc of red anarchists, much larger than the black bloc has ever been, dominating the scene. They've taken on the tasks the Communist party bureaucracy failed to tackle, and avoiding the childish bull the black bloc was sometimes caught in. Instead, they're going straight to workers, these are young workers and youth, dedicated and organized with a platform and disciplined patient work. They are the fastest growing part of the communist movement in north america, of that there is no doubt. Regardless, there has definitely been enough history listed above that puts anarcho-communism on par with trotskyism at the very least, in terms of having historical importance without taking over a state.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 11:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

That's a beautiful essay Hippy, but it doesn't illustrate or demonstrate what effect anarcho-communism has had. You assert that it is up-and-coming and is rapidly rising to prominence among the communists (and I presume among some anarchists as well). But as it stands, the Communist Party of Iraq has gotten more coverage and been involved in more political events than any anarcho-communist group in the entire world. Your standard for notability includes:

not ever being mentioned in the news,
not ever leading a large event,
not ever having a single book published with "anarcho-communism" in the title or the text,
not having a single public personality in *any* country in the world,
not having had any effect on world affairs or world history,
not having any authoritative source at all that can actually be cited.

Look, this isn't WikiNews. Wikipedia is here to provide people with relevant information. I'm not arguing against the existence of the anarcho-communist article, since I believe you that there are anarcho-communists out there. However, I think it is extremely misleading to the reader to include anarcho-communism alongside the major communist movements of history. All of the other movements have made news, made history, had volumes of books written about them, had well-known public figures, and all of this can be cited easily. Please don't continue to insist that your favorite brand of communism absolutely deserves a place on the template. The template serves as a compact and succint summation of a topic so that users can easily get the most salient aspects of a subject before branching out--anarcho-communism is not even close to being on of the top-ten subjects within the topic of communism. I understand that both you and Natalinasmpf are personally anarcho-communists, but please do not use wikipedia as a way to promote your own brand of communism, to the detriment of the encylopedic nature of the template. —thames 13:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't been an anarchist of any kind for a while now, just can't be bothered to update my userpage. Once again, beyond the ukrainian situation, I don't need to prove anything to you. Ukraine was a notable event in history. It doesn't matter whether you believe that anarcho-communism is on an upswing today in certain places in the world or not. You want a historical link to the communist movement, and a historical event of far-reaching consequences, well Nestor Makhno's Ukrainian revolt is that historical event. It is a very important event, because as far as I've seen, it comes up in almost every disagreement between anarchists and Marxists in some way. It is important that we show the diversity that exists in the communist movement, and that means showing a living movement, with the major disagreements represented. Quite clearly the Marxism/Anarchism debate is one of those major disagreements, over which much blood has been spilled since the Makhnovist revolt.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 15:16, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

It is and it isn't

This template is called "Communism" but it actually about authoritarian movements who have hijacked the term. Therefore, no anarchist movement belongs directly in it, and it is insulting for anarchists to be associated with "Communism" in this sense. However, anarchists are communists in the literal sense of the term, so Anarchism (Anarcho-communism if you insist) should be added at the bottom as a "see also", just as the Anarchism template has a "Related subjects" section. — Chameleon 09:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll support this compromise. —thames 13:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Related Subjects

Why is Stalinism (as well as the TERM) Marixism-Leninism always deleted from the infobox. They were under the RELATED SUBJECTS section. Surely they're RELATED SUBJECTS.

Jareand 23:54, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that they are related, but the related subjects section seems to be only links that are related to communist theory. Stalinism, Marxism-Leninism, (along with Juche--also routinely removed) are all governing ideologies. They are more unique to their country than to communism, in theory. That, and they contribute to template bloat. Links to Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, and Juche are only one click away from the template itself. —thames 01:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)