Template talk:Communism sidebar/Archive 2

Archives
October 2004 — June 2005

Council Communism

why did we remove council communism?

I too would like to know why Council Communism was removed. I think it is a more valid as a "school" of communism than Left Communism is. Left Communism is more of an umbrella term for council communism, bordigism, etc. I suggeest that Left Communism be moved under the Related Subjects heading. Seeing as Juche and so on aren't under the Schools.. heading I am more moveable on the issue of Council Communism. However, if there are no objections I will be moving Left Communism soon. --Saboteur 11:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Juche is the Communist ideology which governs 23 million people. Surely in this aspect it is more important than Trotskyism. Marxism, Leninism, Maoism and Juche are all of the current governing ideologies of Communist theory and should be the four retained.

we can keep on like this for all eternity. 'juche' is not a 'school of communism', it is not a distinct ideological trend. It is an interprentation (or is claimed to be) of m-l in Korean context. Thus it cannot be replicated outside Korea. There are load of 'national interpretations' of marxism around, we can't really list them all. Trotskyism is (although I have no sympathy for it) a significant historical trend in the international communist movement. Also, is Maoism a governing ideology today? If so where? The People's Republic of Mars? --Soman 22:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Juche is seperate from Marxism-Leninism. North Korea claims it is a completely new and revolutionary Communist ideology, making it seperate from Marxism-Leninism as it is not based on materialism. Juche is an ideology within Communism, certainly larger than Trotskyism which has never lead any nation on earth. Marxism, Leninism and Maoism all lead nations today. The People's Republic of China is lead by the Communist Party of China which claims Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory as it's guiding ideas and states so in their constitution. Vietnam, Laos and Cuba claim Marxism-Leninism with Vietnam also claiming Ho Chi Minh's Thought. Juche has many study groups abroad and I could easily argue is not merely a nation-Korean ideology, but can be applied and possibly even was applied elsewhere (Romania).

Has been applied elsewhere? So basically its just about personality cultism? The 'Juche Study Groups' here and there basically fill two functions 1) providing trips to North Korea for people who like to get formal receptions on their vacations and 2) mobilizing against imperialism, through the belief that strengthening North Korea weakens imperialism. Nowhere (with the exception of a minimal one-man sect in Costa Rica) has these Juche Study Groups or Korea Friendship societies led to formations of distinct political parties. In sharp contrast to erstwhile China or Albania friendship societies.

Moreover the template is already to state-centered. Most of the articles featuring the Template relate to the history and development of the communist movement. Within that context Juche is a fringe phenomena, whereas Trotskyism (as well as Left Communist, Maoism, etc.) plays a central role. The Trotsky-Stalin split played a crucial role in shaping the character of the international communist movement (even in North Korea). Futhermore, Maoism as an ideological construct has virtually nothing to do with current Chinese government practice. The fact that portraits of Mao are still around doesn't really change that. --Soman 00:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Juche is an ideology that governs 23 Million people, Trotskyism governs 0. Juche should be included before Trotskyism is, though my preference is to have them both represented there. Maoism is an ideology and pictures do not make it. The current Chinese government has never denounced Mao Zedong Thought and follows an interpretation of it. Prove to me where Maoism has been abandoned in China. 1.3 billion people live in a government that claims Mao Zedong Thought as a guiding idea.

also, I'd like to note that no government has adopted Mao Zedong Thought except the People's Republic of China, so if Juche is not included, neither should Maoism. I would advise the return of Juche, Council Communism among others.

I disagree that Juche should be included. It represents a state ideology that was instituted after the revolution. It did not lead to North Korea proclaiming itself communist. Maoism, on the other hand, is a theory that had a major effect on the chinese communist movement from the 1920's through to Mao's death. In addition to this, much like trotskyism, maoism has had a significant effect on the far left. This includes, but is by no means limited to, the New Left movement.

Juche, as far as I'm concerned, can stay off the template for the time being.

I would also like to add that the template, as a whole, is essentially useless and poorly organised, and I favor a major overhaul. Perhaps dividing it and making a Schools of Communism template on it's own would solve some problems. At least then we could include a number of fringe movements and subcategories. It would indeed be more thorough and helpful. --Saboteur 04:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with making it a seperate category. I say that Trotskyism has guided no state on earth, it has not even taken major flight anywhere for a long period of time. Juche guides 23 million people and there are major claims that the ideas of Juche, while not being called Juche, were a major part of Kim's theories from 1931 until the liberation.

Please, please, sign your posts. Otherwise it becomes almost impossible for outsiders to see whom was written what. Trotskyism was, well a major tendecy in the early Soviet Union. Trotsky is very well able to size power in USSR, and his tendecy is politically relevant since it is a division from the original Bolshevik movement. It is not a regional exotic oddity.

Moreover, Trotskyists have played important roles in several points in history, like in Bolivia, Sri Lanka, Argentina, Brazil. Anyone with a knowledge of British Labour affairs around 80s know the Militant group. And in France trotskyists got 10% of the votes in the second-last presidential elections. Trotskyist are represented in parliaments in Brazil, Denmark, Portugal, Sri Lanka, etc..

As per "Juche in 1931" its just a postconstruct by a machine of propaganda. Kim's politics in 1931 were the ones ordered by Moscow. --Soman 22:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

schools of communism

-> (trotskism and maoism) are leninists currents. -> I added council communism --193.248.99.144 09:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

And I'm keeping it in. It deserves to be there. --Saboteur 06:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Left Communism (a concept which, amongst other things, include Council Communism) is already included. Left Communism played some sort of a role in the far left in the 1920-30s and regionally in Italy during 1968, but on a whole seen over the last century its a marginal tendency. It does not deserve two separate links on the template. If so, there are numerous other tendencies we could include, such as Posadism. --Soman 08:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Left communism is hardly included. Besides, it's an umbrella term that has no relevence in the "schools..." section. I now strongly urge we consider placing Council Communism back in the "Schools of Communism". As many have said, and I fully agree, Leninism is by no means the be all, end all of communism.

I don't entirely agree with you. Sure, left communism has never "ruled a nation" or anything like that, and it has never strived for it either. But it has been quite influential, and not only in Italy during the first half of the century. The situationists where influenced by left communism, and so were large parts of the italian and french -68 movements. Today, most of the advanced communist theory comes from groups affiliated with left communism (I don't think that marxism-leninism has produced any theory at all the last 50 years), and many interesting new projects are more or less built on left communist theory. But ironicly, left communism has probably held more influence over the anarchist movement than the traditional marxist movement, even though left communism is a marxist tradition (and probably the one closest to Marx' original ideas).

Historically, marxism-leninism has been a much more "important" tradition than left communism, but not today. We have to weight "importans 50 years ago" against "importans today".

If something should be removed its rather "christian communism". Really, have christian communism held any influence at all since the middle of the 19th century?

81.227.86.149 10:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Juche should definitely be added, Juche guides the lives of 23 million people, more than Trotskyism, Left Communism or many others listed ever have or known adherants to these ideologies. Juche has been applied actively in North Korea and was the model for Nicolae Ceausescu's Romania and arguably had some influence in the practices of Democratic Kampuchea. Hence, as an ideology which currently is at the head of one nation and massively influenced 2 others and is declared as a "New and Revolutionary" ideology, different than and surperior to Marxism-Leninism, it should be added somewhere in, possibly below Titoism or take the place of Christian Communism, which has had little to no influence for about 150 years.

remove brackets

The brackets just look confusing. I urge their removal. --Soman 09:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Religious Communism

Religious communism is another lousy umbrella term. If where puting religious communism in schools of thought, then we'd put Council Communism in with Left Communism, and the rest in with Marxism-Leninism. That's a really stupid idea. Besides, I don't think any religious communism is a school of thought. It's all based on interpretation of the scriptures. (But that isn't my main point, so don't just respond to that). --Saboteur 21:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm also sceptical to including it, and I'd wish a consensu be reached. IMHO, the template ought to be limited to the modern Marxian ideological tradition, and exclude pre-Marxian variations that might for some historical reason carry the same name. --Soman 21:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be heavily systemically biased towards Marx. Religious organisations, if not anarchist organisations (although anarchist communism is currently not listed as a school but that is tolerable), we are tracing the development of communism after all: and Marxism is just another fork, that spawns forks in itself, in communist ideology. Religious communism is a school of thought, because it asserts that certain religions in general (from Buddhism to Islam to Christianity) mix well with communist ideals. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we shouln't limit the template to Marxist schools, and I'm all for Communist Anarchism being included, but I still don't see Religious communism as a school of thought. In any event, the article itself isn't much. Considering that there are many schools that should be included but have been removed because of issues over the length of the template, the article should be substantially improved before it could be included anyway. --Saboteur 10:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The main criteria for inclusion of a certain school is not the length and quality of the relevant article, but the historical importance of that school (if the Marxism article was really short and badly written, could we exclude Marxism? hardly). Religious communism is an important school - or current, or whatever you wish to call it - and therefore should be included. Historically speaking, it is in fact the original form of communism. By the way, the length of the template is not an issue here, because we're not talking about adding anything, we're just talking about moving stuff from related subjects to schools of communism. For the record, I'd support moving Left Communism and Anarchist Communism into the schools section too. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 20:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It doesn't matter about the quality of the article. What matters is that it's an umbrella term a number of different utopian religious movements based around communes and the like. It is not a school of thought. There is no school of though wanting religious communists. There are only Christian communists, Buddhist communists, Jewish communists, etc. Do you see what I'm saying? --Saboteur 06:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change the word "schools" to something more along the lines of "branches" or "varieties"? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 15:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Template:Communism

Template:Communism sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Communism sidebar. Thank you.

Nomination seems to be non-existent. Removing notice. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A few things

There appears to be a bit of an edit war going on on this template. May I ask what is being warred over? I'm trying to determine whether I should lock the template up and force people to talk, or whether there is already talk ongoing.

Also, a message above this says that this has been submitted to TfD, yet I see no entry on the TfD page. What is going on here? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Communism

Template:Communism sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Communism sidebar. Thank you.

The template seems to have survived the TfD, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_16#Template:Communism sidebar --Alvin-cs ✉ 18:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not violate the 3RR

The next violator will be blocked, though it will not be by me. Despite me having my own stance on the issue, discuss the dispute here please, I won't hesitate to report 3RR violations on any of the editors here, regardless of what I think. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is it. Discuss any further changes here. I am trying to be as impartial as possible, but aggravating the dispute isn't helping. Discussion is obviously needed. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that the edit war has ceased may I know when will the template be unprotected for editing again? I simply can't stand the wrong ordering of Trotskyism · Maoism <br> Stalinism -- surely it ought to be either Stalinism · Trotskyism <br> Maoism (in chronological order) or Stalinism · Maoism <br> Trotskyism (in order of influence). --Pkchan 17:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Very well, it will be unprotected. Now I hope the rest of you can do it civilly.

Stalinism

Stalinism is clearly not a school of communism. Anyone who has read and comprehended the Stalinism page would agree. So how about we start on that. --Saboteur 09:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As a non-Communist, I cannot agree either that the page says that, or that it ought to. The CPSU certainly did, for some years, claim to be following the teachings of Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin; and it is not Wikipedia's business to say that they were wrong. We must discuss under Communism everyone who claimed to be there, and not only those who (by someone's standards, even mine) ought to be there. Septentrionalis 16:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Saboteur, while I see your point I don't think it's appropriate for wikipedia to judge that Stalinism is not a school of communism at all. Remember that wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive, and so if there is a signficant portion of the world who would associate Stalinism as a branch of Communism then we have to respect that and describe Stalinism as thus. Surely you may go edit the Stalinism page and point out its departure from Communism -- in a NPOV, it goes without saying -- but Stalinism shall remain on this template. --Pkchan 17:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Kindly resolve this without resorting to a revert war. If you want, perhaps we can have an RFC on the issue. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If that's a means of facilitating rational discussion on this topic, then perhaps RfC is what we should go for now. Edit warring is one of the last things I'd like to have here. --Pkchan 04:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I saw this on TfD and thought maybe I'd make a proposal (in any case I will be removing it soon since it is a good candidate for speedy keep with the overwhelming opinions there). I believe we could cut down the size and the arguments by having pages like Schools of communism (Branches of communism if you'd prefer). We could remove links to the individual schools from the template which make it needlessly large. The same goes for parties. On the main pages the prominent schools and parties will be listed first since there are obviously some of greater importance. It would cut down size and maybe help quell some of the arguments. gren グレン ^? 00:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a reasonable proposal, although it will drastically slow down the use of the template for navigation. I don't care that much, but others may. Septentrionalis 16:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

SIZE IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE

Sorry for the caps, but this needed to be said and all users need to become aware of it. I'll even say it again: Size is no longer an issue. It was an issue many months ago when the template aimed to include every former Communist state and every communist thinker or leader, but those are long gone. Right now, the communism template is much shorter than several others. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 03:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The Communism Box on the Historical Materialism page looks like

an ad box on Google. It seems to me that "communisim" ought to be listed as a related subject rather than highlighted as the apotheosis of historical materialism. If the word "change" is substituted for the word "progress," historical materialism makes a good deal of sense as a theory of understanding many but not all past human events. Its usefulness is limited to that of a tool for understanding the past. It is not a prescription for determining the future. Communism as it was experienced in the twentieth century and continues to be experienced in the twenty first is proof of that.

The Peoples Republic of China has been a capitalist nation since the death of Mao Zedong.

I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with anything?. The template is on that page because historical materialism is a related subject of communism, not the other way around.

Again, can we try being constructive and at least agree on Stalinism not being in the schools section? --Saboteur 08:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No school of..

Kropotkins ideas/theorys are part of anarchism. It is in the line of antiautory socialism, not in the line of any school of communism. In political-science contexts it isn't a "school of communism". I take the anarchist communism to related subjects.--82.83.105.40 09:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't have an article on antiauthority socialism. We have libertarian socialism, but then anarchist communism is a branch of libertarian socialism, but being libertarian at the same time does not disqualify it from being communist. "Anarchist communism" perfectly complies with the definition of "schools of communism" here, advocating a communalist, anarchist state (which is what communism effectively is). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In anarchist communism"state" is abolished/destroyed. Communism isn't a kind of anarchism. That thoght would be wrong at all. In the center of a communist thoght/theory is not the stateslessnes(right word?), the greater aspect is the harmonic end of explotation and so on. That's not the same like destroy-the-state-and-then-there-is a-harmonic-society-thoght (anarchism). For example in marxism theory in the end the state dies... In science anarchist communism is Libertarism.Anarchist communis is libritäry communalism. Anarchist communism is a school of anarchism. It resembles the "antiautority socialsm" Ideas by Bakunin, that's i mean with "in the line of". Anarchist communism by Kropotkin was creat after the split in workers-movement. If the society in the end "effectively" is the same, like you said, doesn't make the theorys to the same schols of.. .--82.83.86.165 00:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The emphasis of communism is collectivism, yes, but communists generally recognise a stateless society as an ideal. Leninsm sees the need for an intermediary socialist state (state socialism), but many communists do not see it that way. Communism and anarchism were really originally synonyms, just that Lenin begin to emphasise the "commun" root, but ironically the concept of "commune" was destroyed because of his revolution. The theories of what espouse the final state are roughly similar, the theories of how it is implemented is not. It still is communist. It is merely two sides of the same coin, like electricity and magnetism in electromagnetism (pardon the allegory). Many people consider communism and anarchism the same thing, and come into conflict with authoritarian communists; in fact there is a division within the Marxist movement itself concerning the use of authority, there are libertarian Marxists. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You said, (at template disc):"Leninsm sees the need for an intermediary socialist state (state socialism), but many communists do not see it that way. Communism and anarchism were really originally synonyms, just that Lenin begin to emphasise the "commun" root, but ironically the concept of "commune" was destroyed because of his revolution "-

That means before lenin everybody means that communism and anarchism were synonyms. That's not true. Marx and many other communists don't like the anarchist way to emphasis the destruction of the state. They are feared of useless and absurd destructive mania. And the anarchists don't think so. That was the reason of the split of socialist movement.

The "stateless society" weren't a communist ideal alone. It is not in center of communist theory, but it 's a part of it. An intermdiary socialist state is not the idea of Lenin. It 's the idea of marx first. Lenin refered to this Marx-idea.

You could say that Lenin betray the ideas of marx; but not the ideas of the anarchists, because they have not the same ideas/"commun" concept/theory like marx. Or you could say that marx betray the other socialists and the "socialist" concept of "commune", in theoretical way.

After Lenin and his revolution and before Lenin: Anarchism (anarchism by Bakunin, anarchist communism, mutualism,...) and communism (marxism..., Weitling-communism (it 's not the same like marxism),....earlierer kinds of- Other communists exists, but they are not "anarchist-communists"-) don't were synonyms for the same. The terms have history, yes. But we are not in the 16 th century. There was much history ago, and the terms are not the same like in in the middleages, because these theorys were create later. And Bakunin and so on aren't communists at their times and aren't today.

You said (at template disc.page):"The theories of what espouse the final state are roughly similar, the theories of how it is implemented is not. It still is communist. It is merely two sides of the same coin,"-

The final society, not "state".

Yes, similar NOT the same.

The ideologys of Communism and Anarchism don't mean exactly the same. We have two articles here, " communism" and "anarchism". But they are in the same family. The term/"familyname" (or "the same coin") of anarchism and communism is "socialism" not "communism". (-collectivism is emphasesed by communism and by almost all schools of anarchism, but i dont't mentioned it in my post. -template disc)

Political science is another thing (and more complicated) like naturel science, i think:

"Libertary marxists", dont heard about that..(template disc page). Marx were didn't like that term, i think. "marxism" is "marxism", and not libertary, he would say .We don't´have these article. But there is council communism (yes there is some positiv reationship even to Marx), that 's another thing.

Noam Chomsky said that schools of communism and schools of anarchism are the same thing, you discripe. He is a professor of linguistics, and he is more a political reader (anarcho-syndiikalist) than a political scientist. Anarchists and communists (not marxism only) are both kinds of socialists/Socialism,yes. We have article to Anarchism and we have article to communism, that's not totally the same. Kropotkin is called anarchist(radical libertarian) if he wants or not. We have theorys and we have terms and we have to differented it and to make understandable that and to put in order that.--82.83.90.203 09:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to object. Marx perception of the first stage of communism is actually quite far from Lenin's perception of "socialism". For Lenin, the first phase of communism (which he calls socialism) means that the working class takes power over the existing process of production through a [workers-) state. For Marx the first phase of communism is something completly different. For Marx, this phase is identical to the free association of producers, the abolition of the divsion between producers and means of production, the abolition of the property relations as such.

For Marx there is no such thing as a communist stage with a state, commodity production or wage labour.

And it is also pretty clear that Marx abandoned the view on the state that he expressed in the manifesto for a more radical position. In some of his later works about the Paris Commune he clearly pointed out that the the working class can not use the state for their own goals, and that the state must be obliterated. This view is also presented in the later prefaces of the manifesto.

And anyway, it's 2006 not 1906. Marxism and anarchism have both developed over the last hundred years. Marxism and anarchism is quite intwined now a days, really most anarchists read Marx and most marxists read at least some anarchists. Even though we have differences we still have more in common. We all strive for a class- and stateless society without private property, wage labour and commodity production. And I can also point out that, people from social democrats to jucheists calls themselves marxists. Haha! Really, I think almost all marxists feel that they have more in common with atleast some anarchists than many so called "marxists". :)

I don't really know if I like the term "school of communism". Communism is no ideology or theory or the like. Communism is a material movement. But if we should have a template called "school of communism", marxist schools and anarchist schools should both be included. Should we on the other hand create templates called "schools of marxism" and "schools of anarchism", the different anarchist communisms would fit in the later.

81.227.86.149 09:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

edit war

Protected again. Surely, compromise can be reached? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've edited forth the changes that are presented in the current version. All I did was to change the place of left communism and titoism since left communism is a school of communism while titoism is a related subject, and not the opposite.

I also did another minor change and changed the "world revolution" link to a "international communist current" linke, since WR only is the british section of the ICC. I guess it's better to link to the entire party and not just the british section?

Okay, I will unprotect this page in 24 hours. However, all further edits should have a qualified edit summary, be improvements, not conflicts, any edits that undoes another editor's changes should be discussed before being implemented, otherwise I will reprotect again. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Autonomist Marxism?

Should autonomist marxism be included? It's quite well spread now a days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.86.149 (talk • contribs)

Hammer and Sickle

Shouldn't this image be removed as the "symbol" of communism? This is the symbol of the USSR, not communism. Using it as the symbol gives a direct correlation between Russia and the true definition of communism, which many people (such as myself) would argue against (that Russia didn't even come close to true communism). Shouldn't there be a more appropriate picture to represent communism rather than Russia, like a picture of Marx, perhaps? iNaNimAtE 06:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The hammer & sickle is the most universal symbol of communism. It is used by most communist parties around the world. --Soman 09:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

How about the red star? --Ajlandin 16:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Red Army != communism. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I still say it is racist against my homeland and shall remove it again up to 2 times per day.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord fabs (talk • contribs)

First of all, you're the only person who ever made the ridiculous claim that the hammer and sickle is somehow "racist". Second, there is no wikipedia policy banning racist symbols. See the Nazism template, for example, which contains a swastika. If you want "racist symbols" banned, go and propose an official policy. But until such a policy is adopted, please leave this template alone. -- Nikodemos 07:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

ICC?

How comes there a link to ICC? Isn't there thousands of communist organizations with more political relevance than ICC? --Soman 16:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Communism Side Bar

Under the list of communist countries, the East Bloc as well as Yugoslavia and Albania are not on it, as it is protected, could someone please fix this?

Unprotect?

There isn't any real discussion or debate here, so why is the page still protected? At least downgrade it to semi-protect so established users can edit it. The Ungovernable Force 03:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Any admin, please either somewhat unprotect or add zh:Template:Communism.--Jusjih 15:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Communist States

This section should be divided into two sections: Current and Defunct. Under defunct could come all the former Communist republics affiliated to the Soviet Union.

Belarus could probably come under Current: they operate a Command economy, as much industry and commerce is state owned today as was in the Soviet Union times, and their leader Lukashenko is an open admirer of the USSR.

Do not include Belarus. It's a Soviet-style regime for sure. But the country is not formally under Communist Party rule, so Belarus is not a Communist state in the technical sense. 172 | Talk 13:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

New Communsim

Clearly we should add a link to New Communism. It is a seprit idea and believe to the other fare left schools of Communism because of it's Nationalist characteristics and ideas. I did put a link to the site in the box but it moved can you pleas tell me why. It should be put back because it is very diffrent. It is also clear why it is diffrent and called "New" Communsim. I my self is a New Communist. I have also wrote a article about the topic under Marxism --PETER THE GREAT 05:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Important persons

i think that Imre Nagy should be added. as he was important in the Hungarian revolution of 1956 and so should Mátyas Rákosi (who invented salami tactics) and Béla Kun (who started the first communist state in Hungary). and fnally Ceasescu who created a somewhat independent form of communism.

Why is there a section for communist states?

When you look at the article on communism, it says "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization", so the idea of a communist state would be an oxymoron, no? -NorsemanII 05:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No. There's a gulf between ideology and practice. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a gulf between what are vulgarly called communist states (the practice, improperly called as such), and the ideology. It should be obvious that calling a state communist doesn't make it so, even if large numbers of uneducated people think so, and claim as much. If I call the US a communist state, how do you know whether or not I'm telling the truth? You look at what the word communist means, and whether or not the US matches that definition. The US has a state, and classes, so it's not communist. Any state is in contradiction with communism, so, to be academically correct, there should be no list of communist states. Perhaps lists of self-proclaimed communist states, or states accused of being communist, but not a list of communist states. That's like having a list of gaseous solids. -NorsemanII 01:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There is also a gulf between officious academic rigidity and practice. Yes, you are correct that technically the concept of a "communist state" is a contradiction given the stated ideology of communism. However it is practice, not ignorance or lack of education, that shows that the reality and theory of any political ideology rarely meet. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 08:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about the reality and theory of a political ideology, nor is this a technicality. We're talking about the reality, and defintion of a political ideology, which is a huge difference. If I say X (a type of state) = Y (its definition), and say that Z (a state) = X, but Z != Y, then I am contradicting myself. I can't say that I have found a communist state if communism is by definition stateless, just as I cannot say that I have found a gaseous solid, if solidity is contradictory to gaseousness. It's not a technicality, either: the word "stateless" doesn't have any meaning or usage that allows you to have a state anyway, so there is no way it can be a technicality. It's simply false, and every bit as wrong to use in an encylopedia as my gaseous solid example. -NorsemanII 08:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Please put your dudgeon in low gear. And skip the lectures. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Should I have added "he stated matter-of-factly."? It's difficult to convey tone in writing, unless you're doing that explicitly. Lectures, however, I am doing, and I won't stop. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not wikiality as decided by popular uneducated opinion. When wikipedia starts to contradict itself, as it has in this case, I think we can all agree that that's a very serious problem which needs to be analyzed and corrected. -NorsemanII 09:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And precisely at whom is this little gem directed, "...not wikiality as decided by popular uneducated opinion"? One hopes it is a general statement. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It is. Look, whenever I say something, just I assume I ended the statement with "he stated matter-of-factly". There are no special inflections or hidden meanings in anything I've said here. If there are, I'll tag them somehow, like this. Twice you seemed to indicate a certain dislike for being academically correct "...skip the lectures." and "There is also a gulf between officious academic rigidity...", so I made the point that academic rigidity is what should be on wikipedia, "...not wikiality as decided by popular uneducated opinion". I don't know anything about your education, for all I know, you could be a professor of communist philosophy. What I do know is you are at least aware of the problem of calling something a communist state, and that you seem to be arguing that this problem should continue because academic rigidity is somehow bad. Thus, I made the case that wikipedia should not be wikiality, and that we should have academic rigidity instead. "He stated matter-of-factly" -NorsemanII 21:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No, no, you misread what I was saying...if I felt strongly that "Communist States" needed to be in the template I'd have argued vociferously, but as I did not, you can take that to mean that I actually do agree with you. Given the celerity with which you reverted the change (which was in itself a revert) I wanted to discern your reasoning. Yes, it was an experiment of sorts -- a hold-over from my college days where I was a poli-sci major.

In any case, it is apparent that I misread you as well, and took exception to the lecturing, from which I drew too many inferences. Peace. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin missing?

Why is Stalin and Stalinism missing completley from this list? Stalin and Stalinism are quite notable in history, if not moreso then Trotskyism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.240.31.67 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 30 November 2006.

Stalinism is socialism, not communism. Note the practice of Socialism in One Country, emphasis on the word socialism, the presence of a state (which contradicts with the communist practice of statelessness), and the presence of a class system (where Stalin, like a super-bourgeoise, owned all the means of production personally) which contradicts with the communist practice of classlessness. Stalinism is quite notable in history, but it's not notable as being communist. Stalinism is far more accurately described as a socialist dictatorship verging on fascism. -NorsemanII 01:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Trotskyism, Stalinism and Leninism are all movements inside the Communist Movement, and all of them are socialist regimes. If the presence of a state contradicts the Communist movement, then neither Trotsky nor Lenin are communists. Kim Il Sung was a socialist dictator with a Communist ideology. Pol Pot was a communist dictator with a post-Communist and ultra-maoist ideology. It's just an opinion that Stalin owned all the means of production personally. I can say "the presence of a class system (where Fidel Castro, like a super-bourgeoise, owned all the means of production personally". Then Fidel Castro is not a communist. What's the difference between Lenin and Stalin then? Why define Stalin like a super-capitalist and not like a super-feudalist? Capitalism works like a class system, but not any class system is capitalist. The marxism defines a class by the origin of his rent. In the case of the Soviet Union, everybody have the same origin for his rent: salary. There is no inequality based upon private accumulation of capital, and to enhance the production does not benefit the bureaucratic income. The Soviet Union (Leninist or Stalinist) was a socialist system, and their inequalities determined by the political power. If those inequalities are fair or unfair it doesn't matter. They don't determine the difference between socialism and communism. Joseph Stalin was a Communist like Lenin was a Communist. We're doomed as marxists if the communist or socialist condition of a regime depends on the volutarism of our judgement of the political manipulations of just one person (Stalin in this case). The proletarian dictatorship doesn't exist from the beginning and the historical materialism have no sense if the leader can use their political power in order to create an entire social class. Jouvenel 19:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Stalin was actually nothing more than an fascist. There`s a clear difference in the way Soviet was run before and during Stalin´s regime. In this, in the murders and paranoia, we see who truly was the proper communist among the two (Donnald 21:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC))

I've got to agree with Jouvenel here. Stalin, regardless of whether you believe he represented the 'true ideals' of Marxism/communism/whatever, was an extremely prominent member of the Communist movement. If one discounted Stalin by the fact he was a dictator, one would also have to discount every Communist party who followed the line of the Comintern, and every Communist party that was a part of the the Third Period and Popular Front campaigns. It would be ludicrous to suggest that these parties were not members of the Communist movement, yet by the logic of some here, they are not, because the followed the line of Stalin. By stating that Stalin was not a communist, one is simply inserting POV into the template -because you are determining (by your own biased standards), who is a 'true communist' and who is not. I would guess that to the vast majority of the population, Stalin is inextricably linked to Communism, not least because he was the leader of the Russian 'Communist Party'. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It’s not about denouncing Stalin because he was a dictator. Lenin was equally a dictator. Thats very much the idea behind dictatorship of the proletariat. It’s more about his ideals. The mass murders, the paranoia, and foremost the lack of democracy. He did not ask his workers and farmers to collectivism, he made them (Donnald 01:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC))

But weren't those actions (forced collectivisation, etc.) carried out (at least publicly) in the name of 'communism'? Hence, regardless of whether or not Stalin's ideals truly followed the ideals of communism (if they even exist), doesn't the fact that he executed them under the name of communism make him a Communist leader - if not a particularly good one? Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 13:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if one follows the logic that Stalin is not a communist because his ideals did not match those espoused by communism, couldn't the exact same argument be made to exclude Lenin, Trotsky, or Bordiga? I'm sure there would be many Council or Anarcho-communists who would see the ideals of Marxist-Leninism to be antithetical to those of Marx and Engels. Similarly, there would be many Marxist-Leninists disapproving of Bordiga and Pannekoek being considered prominent communists (as opposed to revisionists). Finally, I'm sure there are many advocates of Stalin who would oppose Trotsky being there. In the end, when there are so many opposing schools of Marxist and communist thought, a debate like this could continue endlessly. The fact is, during the reign of Stalin, the vast majority of international Communist parties worldwide supported him and his regime - the Communist Party of Russia. He must easily be the most prominent person to lead a Communist party (Time Magazine's Man of the Year? - how many other communist leaders have received that?) - consequently, he should be included on this template. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 14:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Image

As noted there are differences of opinion on which image to be used in the template. That the hammer & sickle ought to be used was settled long ago, but I prefer Image:Hammernsickleredonwhite.PNG as opposed to Image:Hammer and sickle.svg, primarily became since the template has a white background. Propose a poll here below. --Soman 08:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently someone keeps changing the image, lets get a vote or something, I personally believe that Image:Sickle.gif should be the image since it reflects communism more. I also have been told that red/yellow are rather Soviet colors more so then communist. NBAwire:syxx 00:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Balance of template?

Why is there no balancing of the content of the template? In the 'schools' section 5 (Left communism, Autonomist Marxism, Council communism, Anarchist communism, Luxemburgism) represent marginal tendencies (and in many ways, variations of the same tendency of thought), whereas there is no link to Marxism-Leninism or Maoism. 'Communist Workers International' is included, inspite of being a marginal historical phenomenon. In the notable communists section, Mansoor Hekmat is included but not Mao Zedong. Karl Korsch is included but not Ho Chi Minh. Why not rename the template to 'Left Communism' overall? --Soman 08:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Balance between what and what ? That's the problem.

The fact is that your version contains a lot less information. You deleted every historic communist organisations, most of the "Schools" (this word should be changed), etc. Plus people that hadn't written anything consistent. --Inbloom2 16:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The balance between the mainstream of the communist movement and a grouping of historically rather unsignificant tendencies (left com, council com, anarc com, luxemburgs, autonomists). Also, do note that this is not the Marxist theory template (there is a separate such template), but the communism template. Stalin and Mao were clearly, after Lenin, the most influencial figures in the world communist movement. Pannekoek was, well, not. --Soman 07:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You want stalinism to be represented instead of communism ? Communism is a theory that has never been achieved. The main relationship between Stalin and communisqm is that he killed over 100.000 communists. --Inbloom2 11:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, here you show your own POV. This a template for articles on communism and the communist movement. Regardless of how you feel towards Stalin he was one of the most influencial figures of the communist movement of 20th century (also forming the ideology of its mainstream). It becomes a little bit like saying that the Pope isn't Christian (which some hardcore protestants might feel and argue). --Soman 11:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The pope was elected, didn't kill thousands of christians, and didn't rule an anti-christian state.

There is no reason at all to erase what you don't like in the template, to put berlinger, so on... --Inbloom2 22:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard of the Spanish inquisition? --Soman 10:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That's no reason for you to remove what you don't like. Your version is more a template of stalinism, or of leninism. This is a template of communism. --Inbloom2 11:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess what you want is to do a Template:Bolshevism. This is something very different, don't do it instead of this template. --Inbloom2 11:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Duh... I recognize the Left Communists as part of the modern communist movement. however, they are historically a very marginal phenonomen. The mainstream of the communist movement, which still mobilizes millions throughout the world, is the Marxist-Leninist tendency. One link is well enough for the Left Communist tendencies. --Soman 11:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong, and you just confirm what I said : you want this to be a template of "marxism-leninism" (ie : stalinism). So you erase what's not in your line. That's pure censorship. --Inbloom2 15:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Who's censoring who? Are you not removing links to communist that you do not approve of? Moreover, I'd expect a little more in-dept argument than "you're wrong". --Soman 15:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

They're not "communists", but rulers of so-called "Socialist states". You're just wrong when you say that stalinism (which you call "Marxist-Leninist tendency") is "The mainstream of the communist movement".

Do a template:stalinism if you wish. --Inbloom2 14:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In Sweden there is a small fringe group (Maranata) that sometimes barges into ceremonies of the mainstream lutheran church, shouting slogans like 'this is the house of the devil!'. In their theological analysis, the Church of Sweden is not not a Christian church. I suppose that if you'd sit down and argue with them, that they could provide lengthy arguments for their case. By your logic, their fringe POV would dictate the definition of 'Christianity' at wikipedia. Wikipedia is neither a Christian nor a Communist encyclopedia, but made for a universal readership. Political motivated definitions and delimitations do not really have any place here. The sole reasonable definition of a communist will be someone who identifies himself as a communist. Otherwise a Pandora's box, with thousands of contradictory individual definitions, will be opened. --Soman 14:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That makes no sense, in two ways. Firstly, you're saying that if someone calls themselves something, it is true that they are that thing. For a real-world example, look at any criminal. Most criminals will maintain their innocence, and according to our justice system, criminals are considered innocent until proven guilty. As an encyclopedia, does it make more sense to say that someone is innocent because they say they are innocent, or does it make more sense to say they claim they are innocent, but the legal system has ruled such and such? You don't call someone a communist because they say they are a communist. You call someone a communist because they are a communist, and you say they said they are a communist if they said they are a communist. That is the only way to be factually correct. If I say that I am a purple elephant from Algeria, it would be correct to say that I said that. It would not be correct to say that I am a purple elephant from Algeria just on my word that it is true. For that, you need a certain amount of evidence corroborating my claim, and no evidence to the contrary.

The second way that statement makes no sense, at least in a practical application for wikipedia, is that to my knowledge, no one has quoted these people* as saying "I am a communist". You have simply taken a defintion of communism, or perhaps no definition at all, just mental categorizations based upon what you've heard, and assigned people as being communist or not, exactly as everyone else has done. As far as you know, you are accurately reflecting who is and is not communist. But you have contradicted your own proposed definition by providing no source for them self-identifying as communists, perhaps because you assumed such a source must exist for them to be categorized in your mind as such. But, by your very definition, not providing said source means that you are attributing them as communists without a reference to justify that.

*"These people" being the people you edited in.

Sidenote: To really understand the importance of my first point you should take a look at WP:V and WP:OR. -NorsemanII 03:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The editors of most other political ideology templates have discovered that it is impossible to reach consensus on who was or was not an advocate of that specific ideology, and have therefore removed all mention of "important figures" from their respective templates. I suggest a similar solution here, except that we may keep the names of all those who are universally regarded as being important communists (Marx, Engels, Lenin and Luxembourg come to mind - I do not believe anyone disputes them being communists).

Basically, the rule should be as follows: "If any other self-identified communist can be quoted as saying that you are not a communist, you're out". -- Nikodemos 08:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the "*" argument NorsemanII makes no sense at all. Stalin was the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. I'm pretty sure that implies that he can be considered as a self-indentifying communist, without providing any quote at all. Common sense and reason also has a place even in wikipedia.

Secondly, NorsemanII quotes the example of criminals/innocents. Perhaps this is a conscious move to divert the discussion. Why not keep the discussion around examples of political, religious and social ideologies? Virtually noone selfidentifies as a 'criminal', as it is a word which has negative connotations across language borders. Virtually noone would construct political parties, unions and other movements to explictly advance the cause of increased crime. Thus the example is highly flawed.

An example which is far more relevant to wikipedia is how to relate to divisions in the Islamic community. Many Sunni theologicans deem Shiites as non-muslims, and many Shiite clerics are not hesitant to declare the Sunnis as non-muslims. By NorsemanII's standards the only people possible to categorize as Muslims at wikipedia would be the Prophet Muhammed (saw) and the first four caliphs, leaving over a billion selfidentified muslims as non-muslims by wiki standards. At wikipedia the choice has been to identify both Sunnis and Shiites as Muslims, regardless of lengthy debates on theological matter, not because Wikipedia takes the side of either party but because any other set of definition would be impossible of manage. --Soman 09:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The question here is not who to identify as a communist on wikipedia (list of communists takes care of that), but who to consider a notable communist thinker for the purpose of this template. No matter who was or wasn't a communist, we still cannot list more than a handful of people here. It might as well be non-controversial people. Notice that the "important figures" mentioned in the Islam template are only Muhammad, the Household of Muhammad, the Prophets of Islam and the Companions of Muhammad. Thus the Sunni-Shia split is avoided. -- Nikodemos 09:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus logic has its limits. 99.99+% of the contemporary communist movement is within the Leninist fold. The absolute majority of the followers of the Leninist tradition belong to parties that emerged out of the Marxist-Leninist tendency. A minority, yet somewhat notable in some countries, belong to the Trotskyist stream. The POV of NorsemanII and Inbloom in this case is such a marginal tendency IRL, that it would be unwise to let them dictate the content of the template. Stalin and Mao, like then or loathe them, played an huge role in 20th century politics. On the other hand, there is in 'my' version of the template, a link to Left communism. For me that is highly generous to the non-Leninist left, and well sufficient. --Soman 09:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

On a different (but still highly important) note, your version eliminates some links to communist organizations (including the Comintern), and keeps the link to the history of communism article, which I wish to remove on the grounds that that article is a complete mess. -- Nikodemos 09:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The Historyu of communism is indeed a mess. But unlinking it will not improve it. It is an article central to the subject, and should be included. Regarding Communist organizations, i prefer to leave them out, simply not to come into conflict over which ones are the most relevant. We have enough trouble trying to find a balance in 'schools' and 'personalities'. --Soman 10:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, do a template:Leninism, or something like that. Your last version was ridiculous : "leninism" as a basic concept of communism, while Lenin was born over 50 years after the rise of the communist movement ! (and the expression "leninism" only appeared after his death !)

Here you want to transform the template:Communism in a template:Leninism, also you want to delete Anti-Stalinist left, ...

As for the Communist organizations, it's just historicals ones. --Inbloom2 10:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The modern communist movement is born with the emergence of Leninism. With Lenin the demarcations between communists (including the left communists) and other socialists are made. It is first during Lenin's era that the communist movement becomes prominent in international politics. --Soman 10:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That is just wrong regarding History : Communism emerged in the 1840's, and the demarcation between socialists and communists is due to the first world war, not to a "leninism" that didn't exist at that time. --Inbloom2 11:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Learn to read. The modern communist movement (i.e. precursor to current communist movement, clearly demarcated from other socialist tendencies) emerged with Lenin. Communism, in general, can be traced even further back than Marx. Regarding hens and egg, the split between communists and socdems was provoked by the War, Lenin leading the formulation of the communist standpoint. Thus your argument is not in contradiction to mine. --Soman 12:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for make-over of template

Check out User:Soman/Template:Communism sidebar. --Soman 09:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree, on the grounds that it slashes many important issues. I am not opposed to revamping the template, but we would do well to follow the examples set by other political ideology templates. -- Nikodemos 09:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

But, can we agree that at this point there is a need to limit the size of the template somewhat, and in accordance with my earlier posting balance its content? --Soman 14:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that template should be trimmed, however I also agree with Nikodemos that current design is better. -- Vision Thing -- 20:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that balance is necessary. And, in accordance with my exclusionist beliefs, I propose to achieve this balance by removing some of the less significant schools and people from the template. -- Nikodemos 07:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems With the Current Template

Kolkhoznitsa is not a symbol image for communism, it's an irrelevant statue in the ex USSR. The picture should be some kind of a hammer and sickle. Internationalism, general strike, Communist revolution, World revolution, Workers Council and Dictatorship of the Proletariat are major concepts of communism. Ho Chi Minh is not a communist, he admits that what guided his "struggle" was nationalism all along. Stalin is not a communist; he is an advocate of "socialism in one country", so is Mao. Bakdash, Mariátegui and Berlinguer have nothing original or extraordinary and there are hundreds of party leaders just like them. Pannekoek is a very important and respected communist from the second international, being the only real "scientist" of an organization which identifies itself as "scientific socialist". Bordiga is a very important and respected communist from the third international, and someone who also led a massive international communist tendency after the acceptance of "socialism in one country". Anarcho-communism is accepted as a branch of communism and Makhno is a prominent figure of this movement who should be represented here. The First International is not a necessarily all-communist organization.

I agree with most of your points. Nevertheless, the First International was the international where Marx, Engels, Bakounine, etc, were active, and the politics of the 1st international was clearly communist. Plus, you deleted some of the "Schools of communism", and put 2 very small internationals that don't belong here. --Inbloom2 12:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Something more : Gramsci is certainly more important than Bordiga. --Inbloom2 12:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

---First International was actually more of a labor union than a communist organization and most of it's memberships came from labor unions. I would say putting the Communist League on this page and putting the First International on Labor Movements page would be better.

Leninism covers Stalinism, Maoism, Eurocommunism etc. I thought, which are tendencies that belong to socialism rather than communism in my opinion.

Bordiga is far more important than Gramsci as a communist. Gramsci was initially a minor figure in the Italian Communist Party, and he owed his rise in the party to the rise of Stalin in Russia, as he was clearly in the right wing of the party. He led the party as Stalin's man for two years and then he was imprisoned and he died in prison. Bordiga on the other hand was not only the founder of the Italian Communist Party but he also led a massive international, which was bigger than the Fourth International. There is a tendency called Bordigism. Gramsci belongs to sociology, Bordiga belongs to communism.

As for putting the ICC and the IBRP, those are not really small internationals, they are clearly communist and they are active, I can't see why they don't belong here.

--Also, Council Communism and Luxemburgism can be considered as a part of left communism and General Strike (or Mass Strike) is a very important concept.

-Also, please don't change the hammer & sickle pic I put there - I just think it looks much better. (unsigned)

I welcome discussion on the subject. I think that the comments of both the anon user and Inbloom clarfies some problems at stake.

• "As for putting the ICC and the IBRP, those are not really small internationals, they are clearly communist and they are active, I can't see why they don't belong here." How many cadres does IBRP have worldwide? Any guess? Compare that guess with that the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has over 800,000 primary members.
• "Leninism covers Stalinism, Maoism, Eurocommunism etc.". Not really. 'Leninism' in this case represents more than 99.99% of the international communist movement. The divisions in the main communist movement, i.e. Sino-Soviet split or the Eurocommunist rift are highly relevant in the template.
• "I thought, which are tendencies that belong to socialism rather than communism in my opinion." Can you understand that perhaps the problem here is that your POV differs to significantly from mainstream conception of communism that it will be impossible to reach a compromise
• Gramsci played a major role in the emergence of new left intellectualism and critical thinking. He is clearly more relevant than Bordiga, who is largely forgotten today.
• "Ho Chi Minh is not a communist, he admits that what guided his "struggle" was nationalism all along. Stalin is not a communist". Again a problem of POV. Wikipedia was no means to define who is a 'true communist'.
• "Bakdash, Mariátegui and Berlinguer ". For a person talking about internationalism, you seem to be bother very little about only giving prominence to Europeans. Bakdash was largely considered as the 'dean of Arab communism', and was highly influencial in shaping the communist movement in the Arab world. Mariátegui is largely credited as the most important developer of Marxist thought and practice according to Latin American conditions. Berlinguer is here taken as a representative of the Eurocommunist trend. --Soman 09:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Images is of course, largely an issue of taste. I personally find the other hammer n sickle both as a bit ugly and I have a problem that it seems cut-n-pasted out of the Soviet flag. The hammer n sickle should clearly be represented as the main symbol of communism, but it should necessarily be the Soviet flag design. The Kolkhoznitsa image has the hammer n sickle, but also illustrates other features of communist thought (Egiltarianism, vanguardism, progress). --Soman 10:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

~Can you understand that perhaps the problem here is that your POV differs to significantly from mainstream conception of communism that it will be impossible to reach a compromise -Not really, they called what they were socialism, they were head of (so-called) socialist states, their ideas revolved around "socialism in one country". They belong to socialism, or if you want, it is of course possible to open up a "Stalinism" template.

~Gramsci played a major role in the emergence of new left intellectualism and critical thinking. He is clearly more relevant than Bordiga, who is largely forgotten today. -Gramsci did not play a major role on anything, he was dead when the dissident intellectuals were bringing up "new left" and reading his work. There had never been a mass movement calling itself "Gramscist". As I said, he belongs to "western philosophies" and sociology, not communism.

~For a person talking about internationalism, you seem to be bother very little about only giving prominence to Europeans. -Sounds funny when I am a middle easterner living in the midde east. I know exactly what those "official CP guys" are.

~Not really. 'Leninism' in this case represents more than 99.99% of the international communist movement. -Not anymore.

~Compare that guess with that the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has over 800,000 primary members. -Uh, so? The SPD has around 1 million members. CPC has something like 70 million. Numbers don't make them "communist".

~Again a problem of POV. Wikipedia was no means to define who is a 'true communist'. -Ho Chi Minh himself admits that he was a nationalist rather than a communist. That's a problem of his POV.

But I think we should take Marx&Engels definition about the term, as after all they are who invented it. So why not ask them whether they think if there can be communism in one country;

-Mr. Engels, will it be possible for this (communist) revolution to take place in one country alone?

-No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth... into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.... It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range. (http://libcom.org/library/principles-communism-engels-main) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayis (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 December 2006

"Not really, they called what they were socialism, they were head of (so-called) socialist states, their ideas revolved around "socialism in one country". They belong to socialism, or if you want, it is of course possible to open up a "Stalinism" template."

But by definition, doesn't every Marxist communist aim to achieve socialism as a precursor to communism. Hence aren't all the 'communists' you mentioned also socialists? Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 11:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

New colors for template?

I don't know, but the watermelon red background and the dark blue text combination makes it difficult to read. Anyone else have thoughts on this matter?--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 11:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Prominent Communists

This is a dispute over which historical figures qualify as being 'prominent communists' - as opposed to 'socialists'. 13:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Good initiative. --Soman 13:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

it seems to me there are many reasons why somebody like Stalin should be here :

• first, this is a template about politics. We are talking here about actual politics, not ideology. Some marxist purists or ideologues could argue that Stalin was not a communist after all, but this goes against the common understanding that he was the boss of the communist world. He was clearly the leader of all the communist parties of the world who reported to him. Considering him not as a communist is pure historical and political non sense.
• second, wikipedia policy is to use word according to their ordinary meaning, not fancy ideological one. If the template was about marxist philosophy, maybe we could exclude stalin but not in a political template.Alain10 17:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• According to Marx, "communism" was final stage when economic differences have been abolished and the institutions of the state fall away. The stages before that are "socialism". No-one ever got to this last stage so technically there are no "communists". That's why the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was so named. As Alain10 correctly observes, we should use the ordinary usage: Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh etc. all qualify as "prominent communists". Sam Blacketer 23:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Not true at all. According to Marx, after the proletarian revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat would come which was the first stage of communism, so heads of so-called socialist states are not communists - they are socialists. There still is (increasing) private property, there still is money, there still is wage-labor. This has nothing to do with communism.

We don't care about what Marx said. The point is to use common language, not esoteric Marxist one. Alain10 11:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

May be a good compromise would be to replace the title "prominent communists" by "prominent initial communists" and create another title that would be : "later prominent communists". We could also do that for "communist organisations". It seems to me that the template should include actual communist organisations, like current communist parties of the world (yes they still exist, the French communist party, for example, is still doing more than 5% of the votes on any election and still controls important cities in France - you could argue that they are not communist any more but this could appear as subjective. They still respect their predecessors, they believe they are actually still communists, they use their language, their organisation, their doctrine etc.) Alain10 11:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

To summarize the issue, I would present it this way:

• Some of our friends believe that initial marxism-leninism has been followed by deviations of the initial ideology that are not entitled to be recognized as communists. Dictators like Stalin are thus not communists.
• This view is enterely respectable, even if another view - that marxism-leninism should assume its consequences and the real-life dictators it has created - is also respectable.
• But however, this is not the point: whether this is deviation or a continuity, real-life communism cannot be excluded from the template "communism". You cannot exclude was has been seen as communism by hundreds of million of people who were ruled by rulers that were governing under the name of communism: Stalin, Mao, Ceaucescu etc. their official parties were named "communist parties", after all. You cannot exclude also real-life communist parties in countries where they were not in power, for example in some western democracies like France, where their role has been and is still very important.
• I suggest that there are two possible compromise routes. One is to rename the template "communism" into something like "communist ideology" or "communist fundamentalism" or "leftist communism", whatever, and we create a real "communism" portal that deals with real-life communism: real communist leaders (Stalin and others), real-life communist parties, including for example the one of France, that still attracts approx 10% of the votes in elections, all what is happening in real-life under the name of communism.
• Or the template communism should be enlarged to include all the links to communism, both the real-life communism and the "ideological communism".

Alain10 13:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

To exclude Ho and Stalin would seem to take such a narrow definition of Communism that the article ceases to be useful to the reader. --MaplePorter 22:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

While stalin and mao don't belong to this template (History proves that their politics were simply opposed to all the principles of communism), if they're added that doesn't mean to erase everything that's not stalinist (schools, etc) ! --Inbloom2 11:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets try to build some "consensus" then. I see people who want to represent communism in the most horrible way and Stalinists are in a full agreement in this topic, not surprising at all, of course. We don't put everyone who called themselves something in that directory, Hitler called himself a "national socialist", this doesn't mean that we will put him down on the socialism template and I am guessing that if we were putting prominent conservatives, Salazar and Pinochet. What you call real "communist" leaders have nothing to do with actual communism and they initially had most aspects of some sort of a capitalist economy; money, private property, ruling class and even private-like businesses later on etc. Communist parties today are indistinguishable from socialist/social democratic parties. So, initially, what we will end up doing will be creating a "Marxism-Leninism" or "Stalinism" template, or put contents of those ideologies in Socialism. Most of them does not even distinguish the words "socialism" and "communism" while identifying themselves. Also, Stalin or Mao is not really a prominent communist, their writings are comical to say the best and they (proudly) accept that they come only from Lenin's theoretical heritage and are (blind) followers of this. In reality, they are simply real-politicians and state-leaders, completely pragmatic, so pragmatic that they can make deals with Hitler on one day and then with Churchill on another. All other real "communist" leaders are under orders of someone in a hierarchical system, with very different actual ideologies, varying from Green politics to straightforward nationalism, or even "soft" capitalism and imperialism. They do not belong here. --Mayis

The comparisons given doesn't work to far. There have been quite lenghty debates on various articles whether to classify National Socialism as a Socialist school of thought. I don't wish to enter into detail into that dispute, but one can confirm that the National Socialists themselves never really saw themselves as part of the wider socialist movement. Conservatism and communism are also little bit difficult to compare. Its far more complicated to pinpoint the exact origin of conservatism, its far more difficult to identify a conservative version of either Marx, Lenin or Stalin (in regard of the role these individuals have had in shaping the international communist movement). Pinochet isn't really claimed by anyone inside the international conservative movement as a person who defined their political though and action (although many people might hold sympathies for him).

Exact delimitations as regards to political ideologies are always difficult to make. Who is a socialist? Who is a conservative? Who is a liberal? In the case of various ideologies, like Liberalism, universal delimitations are extremly difficult as the usage of the term is different in different countries. For example, a US 'liberal' is a 'conservative' in Sweden. However, the socialist movement and the communist movement is far more categorizable since there are common historical denominators due to the internationalist characteristic of these movements. A reasonable delimitation of the communist movement would be groups tracing their political ancestry to 1) Marxism and 2) the break with the Social Democracy during the 1910s. To say that 'communist parties are indistinguisable from socialist/social democratic parties' is purely your own pov. Most people have little difficulty doing that distinction. --Soman 15:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, when in doubt, err on the side of ordinary meanings of words. This is wikipedia policy. Everybody as always seen the USSR to be a communist country, for example. This is what communism means in practice.Alain10 20:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this is another debate but I do not agree with you. I believe that marxism-lenism is the ideology that gave Stalin and Mao. These people are the pure political products of this ideology and this ideology can only produce them, as it has produced Pol Pot, Ceaucescu and others. These people have just been better at understanding it. As all liberals have always known, there can be no freedom without some form of individual ownership. Marxism Leninism as a school of thought produces systematically butchers. We cannot discuss Communism in our comfortable rooms without taking in the debate this reality of the horrible sufferings and butchering of tens of millions under the name of communism. Alain10 20:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

---

--Again, when in doubt, err on the side of ordinary meanings of words. This is wikipedia policy. Everybody as always seen the USSR to be a communist country, for example. This is what communism means in practice.

-Then perhaps you wouldn't mind regarding the Eastern Germany, Yemen or DR Congo as a "genuine democracies" simply because... they proclaim themselves to be?

URSS was not a marginal state but the centre of the communist movement. and btw political communism disappeared with it. Alain10 21:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

--I believe that marxism-lenism is the ideology that gave Stalin and Mao. These people are the pure political products of this ideology and this ideology can only produce them, as it has produced Pol Pot, Ceaucescu and others.

-Fine, then create a "marxism-leninism" or "stalinism" template, as those people or events have nothing to do with communism, it is a different practice, economically almost indistinguishable from early developing capitalism.

--To say that 'communist parties are indistinguisable from socialist/social democratic parties' is purely your own pov.

-Look at their programme, it will be enough.

--Mayis

Just coming from the request for comment, I have to say I find Mayis persuasive. Disclaimers: I'm not an expert on these ideologies, and I haven't read every word here. My first thought was go with the common meanings, with a vague unease at including people primarily known for being mass murderers as prominent members of an ideology. After reading Mayis, though, I would say it should probably be people prominent /for/ their communist beliefs, not simply communists (under a layman's definition) who happened to be prominent. At least Stalin seems more in the latter category, which seems to make the Hitler/Socialist analogy apt to me. It's a tough call though; the simple "Prominent Communists" title, ordinarily, would seem to include a Stalin. I'm with Mayis, but ideally it could be retitled or something to make the choices more clear. Mackan79 19:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also coming to this discussion just from the RfC, I don't see this as difficult at all. The phrase "prominent communist" practically screams for you to use the common meaning of "communist." According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, "prominent" means "readily noticeable," "conspicuous," "widely and popularly known," or "leading." This leads me to conclude that a "prominent communist" is someone widely and easily identifiable with communism, not someone you conclude is a communist after carefully examining the intra-ideological literature to determine who a "true" communist is. Ho Chi Minh and Joseph Stalin claimed to be communists, led states commonly identified as communist states, and are on the very short list of people most likely to be identified as a "prominent communist" by any reasonably well-educated layperson. PubliusFL 20:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could distinguish between leaders and theorists. Would that be feasible? In that case, Stalin would I think clearly be on the leaders list but probably not on the theorists list. Mackan79 21:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. Makes a certain amount of sense to me. PubliusFL 23:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the idea of a division between theorists and practictioners. There is a constant charge against Stalin in practicular that he was less of a theorist than his contemporaries. However, it is not true to say that Stalin or Mao did not do contributions to Marxist theory. The ideological direction of Stalin resulted in the formulation of marxism-leninism, which was adopted by communist parties worldwide. As per Mao, his criticisms towards the official soviet m-l was important not only to the strictly maoist organisations, but for 3rd world marxists and renewal tendecies around the world. Stalin and Mao are prominent both in capacity as theoristists and as leaders. Pannekoek is hardly promiment by any standards in the world today. --Soman 12:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a notice on the beginning of the page, saying that "[t]his article is about communism as a form of society and as a political movement. For information on Communist organizations, see communist party. For information on communist party-run states, see Communist state." This is why putting one accepted and praised (Lenin) stateleader whom all others who came after them as stateleaders claimed to follow completely and one dissident stateleader (Trotsky) who was turned into an object of hatred. I see no point in throwing all party and state leaders - this is not what the article is about, nor is it what the template is about! Also, if we are to take Stalin's and Mao's word for them being "communists" then we should also take their word on being people who considered themselves as the people who followed Lenin's way and did not had much else to say except pointing out to the "truths" shown by Lenin, after all Stalin never called himself a "Stalinist" nor did Mao call himself a "Maoist" - they called themselves "Marxist-Leninists", complete followers of the ideology which was turned into a dogma. --Mayis

Look, the article also says "However, various offshoots of the Soviet (what critics call the 'Stalinist') and Maoist interpretations of Marxism-Leninism comprise a particular branch of communism that has the distinction of having been the primary driving force for communism in world politics during most of the 20th century." If you're going to have a "Prominent Communists" section, how can you not include the two individuals who gave their names to the "branch of communism" that has "been the primary driving force for communism in world politics during most of the 20th century"? What could be more "prominent" than that? You have Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and maybe Engels and Trotsky. Any of these names, or even Ho Chi Minh, seems far more "prominent" than Pannekoek or Makhno, using any reasonable definition of the word "prominent." PubliusFL 23:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Those people are simply state leaders whose ideologies merely mean alliences, what is so hard to understand about this? The branches they represent is, according to them, simply the real "marxism-leninism". If we are to take their words for them being communists, we also will take their words for only being humble followers of the Leninist path. If we are going to take their deeds, then they have nothing to do with communism at all. --Mayis

Note that this is a discussion on the communism template, not the Communism article. The problems of delimitations are different between the two. --Soman 12:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, note that it's not "Communist State" or "Communist Party" template.

First, Mayis, I wasn't the one to bring up the article - you were. I quoted from the same article you did. It's not *me* saying Stalin and Mao were communists, it's Communism. Second, the template is intended to be used for a series of articles about Communism. Communism is the title of the template and the article that the title links to, in the largest font at the top of the template. The template should not contradict or confound readers of its namesake article. Like I said, I came to this page in response to the RfC and had nothing to do with the development of this series. So from the perspective of a disinterested Wikipedia user, if one were to read the anchor article of this series (Communism), then look to the template to look for more articles about this subject, having just read that in the leading paragraph that Stalinism and Maoism were the "primary driving force for communism in world politics during most of the 20th century," one would legitimately wonder why Stalin and Mao are not therefore "prominent communists." If the explanation is "well, we mean something different by 'Communism' at the top of the template than by 'communist' in the middle of the template," that's counter-intuitive and user-unfriendly. Considering that communist redirects to Communism, and that Communism says what I quoted above, the conclusion that Mao and Stalin are "prominent communists" (within the common meaning of those words and the meaning established on Wikipedia) is practically self-evident. PubliusFL 16:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

-It's not *me* saying Stalin and Mao were communists, it's Communism.

Well, that'll have to be debated too then, but back to the topic;

Even if we presume that Stalin and Mao were "communists", that we take their word for it, then we'll have to take their word in the sense that they were in no way prominent in that they accepted Lenin as their superior and claimed that they were only following Lenin. They claimed that they did not have anything to say expect repeating the message of Lenin. Therefore they are not in any sense "prominent". They are simply state leaders, that's all and this template is not about communist states or parties. --Mayis

Mayis, you're using a straw man argument. You keep talking about "taking their word for it." No one's proposing just taking their word for it. We're talking about using the commonly understood meaning of words. It's about common language, plain meaning, ordinary use, NOT self-identification. To address more of your arguments above, the DPRK and East Germany may call themselves democracies, but they are not generally accepted as democracies within the ordinary meaning of the term, and Hitler and his followers may have called themselves "National Socialists," but they are not generally accepted as socialists within the ordinary meaning of the term. I notice you still have not addressed why you do not believe that the ordinary meaning of "prominent communist" would reasonably include Stalin and Mao. Prominence can be obtained in a number of ways. I think two men controlling approximately one third of the total population of the world between them (as of 1950), as the leaders of the world's foremost Communist states, qualifies as "prominent" at least as much as someone coming up with ideas that are considered innovative within a small community of theoreticians and ideologues. With Stalin and Mao, it's not so much the theories they came up with, it's what they did with the theories they supported. PubliusFL 02:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the greatest majority actually knows that what Marx said had very little to do with what Stalin and Mao did (of course Stalin and Mao didn't say anything other than he was a perfect follower of Lenin). What Stalin did, even by himself, is generally accepted as "socialism", not communism. USSR was called "socialist", China was called "People's Republic". Ho Chi Minh was simply a nationalist, and he admitted this. This template is not about the leaders of so-called "communist states" (remember: those states themselves said that they were socialist states instead of communist states) or so-called "communist parties". Bakdash, Mariátegui and Berlinguer are if nothing absurd figures to be put here. Gramsci is merely an intellectual who led the Italian Party as Stalin's man and than died in prison, he belongs in Western Philosophers, not here. Bordiga on the other hand was not only the founder of the Italian Party but later led a massive international, and there is a current of communist called "Bordigism". Pannekoek was one of the most respected communist leaders in the Second International and later in the German Party and he even influenced Lenin. --Mayis

1) The template is for "Communism," not "Marxism." The relationship between what Stalin and Mao did and what Marx said is interesting, but not determinative. 2) The USSR, the rest of the Warsaw Pact states, the People's Republic of China, and Vietnam are and have been widely referred to as "Communist states." As a technical matter of internal ideological concern, they may have only claimed to reach the socialist stage, but practically any reputable mainstream publication you care to reference will refer to the USSR as a "Communist state." You're right that the template is not abount Communist states or Communist parties per se, it is about Communist politics, which is broader than the other two. PubliusFL 18:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In constructing the template we have to conceptualize communism as a real existing phenomenon. You might like to, since it powers your own POV, insinuate that Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh etc. were not communists. However that logic has several faults. USSR was refered to, by itself, as a socialist state. Several other states have been refered to as People's Republic or Popular Democracies. However, that never implied that the political leadership of those states weren't communist. They were/are states led by communist parties, who according to a theory on social development in stages, gradually develop their societies towards a communist, i.e. classless, society. This became the majority trend within the communist movement. The trend that argued that a communist society needed to be installed directly, without passing through stages, was sidelined at an early stage inside the world communist movement. We could, in some other forum, discuss why this happened.

But in writing this template and the other articles on communism we have to relate to the communist movement as a real existing phenomon. You are fulling entitled to feel that the communist movement diverted from Marxist ideological orthodoxy. Lets say for a second that you are right in this analysis. (Although, I myself do not agree to that, but that is of lesser importance in the argument) That however would not mean that the communist movement ceased to be communist, it means that the definition of communism has changed. (which would, according to himself, not constitute a heresy, as Marxist itself emphazises empirical development) In wikipedia we have to relate to the definitions generally used, not 'original' definitions. 'Social Democrat' had a completly different meaning in Russia in the early 1900s, if we were to use 'original' definitions then most Social Democratic parties today would not be defined as social democrats.

The communist movement exists, in real life, since the split in the 2nd international. Marxist political forces existed prior to that, but it is with the 2nd international split that a strictly revolutionary marxist international current emerges (demarcating itself from non-Marxist elements in the 2nd international). The communist movement has never been as monolithic as outsiders have percieved it, there have always been diverging tendencies. Some have renounced communism, and thus should no longer be classified as communists in wikipedia. However, it is not the task of wikipedians to judge which communist faction or tendency has the authority to label itself as communist. At wikipedia we have to try to assert the notability of the various tendencies. The left communist (and other related currents) tendency was a significant phenemon in the early communist movement, but soon became an anachronistic feature. Left Communism doesn't play any role in current world politics. In making the template balanced, one link in the 'schools' section is well enough. I'm open for discussion on exactly which names should be included in the template, but for the discussion to move forward users such as Mayis and Inbloom2 need to agree on the point that they cannot invent the criteria for who is and who isn't a communist themselves and accept that the definition of communism at wikipedia is not one based on an understanding of ideological orthodoxy. --Soman 14:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In order to move the discussion forward I suggest that parallel to discussion the overall definitions of communism, we could discuss each individual case of its own below. I understand that there is no controversy regarding Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg, but that the difference of opinions regards inclusion of the following:

Stalin

• Arguably the single most influencial communist during the post-Lenin era. Notable both in the sense of being a state leader (and one of the most significant ones in modern history) but also made a significant impact on the communist movement worldwide. Marxism-Leninism the ideology adopted by communist parties worldwide was formulated under his guidance. --Soman 14:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• General-Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1922-1953. Effectively controlled most international communist parties during his reign, through the Comintern. Was awarded Time Magazine's 'Person of the Year' award twice. His policies of Five Year Plans and collectivisation were hugely influential in numerous successive communist regimes - such as China. -Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 14:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Stalin was not influential as a communist. He was influential as a state leader, and a politician, but as a communist he claimed to be completely following Marx and Lenin. Marx and Lenin were the guides of communism, he claimed to be the humble follower of the great road set by great "prominent communists". Yet what he practiced was not communism, his regime was not a communist regime and neither were other regimes who followed them. He never claimed that it was communism - he claimed that it was socialism, so did all the other regimes. Some even admitted that what they did wasn't even socialism. Also, it is debated whether Stalin is a communist, because of the purges and murder of a very high number of communists in his regime, his pact with Hitler, "socialism in one country", exalting of a single personality - all those are against communism. Initially, all who claim that Stalin personally are a "communist" are Stalinists and rigid anti-Communists and neither of those groups make up the majority of today's world. Stalin is remembered as a state leader. --Mayis

You may be interested to know that the section under discussion is called "prominent communists," not "influential communists." As I pointed out before, "prominent" means "readily noticeable," "conspicuous," "widely and popularly known," or "leading." Based on what the words we're talking about mean, the focus is on being widely and easily recognized as a communist, not influence on the development of communist ideology. If what you're trying to accomplish is the latter, maybe the section should be renamed "important communist theoreticians" or something like that. PubliusFL 18:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Good example of Stalin's prominence is article on communism in Britannica. Its main table of contents looks like this:

Introduction

The origins of Soviet communism

The Third International

Stalinism

Growth of communism during and after World War II

The world movement up to Stalin's death

The breakup of the world Communist monolith

Problems of internal reform

Communist doctrine after Stalin -- Vision Thing -- 18:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• If something is written in Britannica, it doesn't mean it is objective or true... Stalin is "widely and popularly known" as a statesman, in other words he is known as the leader of the USSR, not as a prominent figure of communism; for him, the prominent figure is Lenin who represents him in every aspect. --Mayis

• This ia a blatant straw-man argument. Stalin was a leader of the Communist party of the USSR, and a leader of the Comintern. He was also prominent. Hence, he was a prominent communist.
  Your argument is the equivalent of saying: "Bill Clinton was not a prominent Democrat, because he is best known for the Monica Lewinski scandal". It's completely illogical. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• You can take this as an answer to all you objections: I have taken Britannica as an example of mainstream scholarly views on role of Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh in communist movement. We are not here to conduct the original research. -- Vision Thing -- 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no straw-man argument here. Being leader of political parties and states doesn't make him a communist or prominent. This is not "communist states" or "communist parties" argument. You are making a nonsensical straw man argument about Bill Clinton. Stalin would consider Marx and Lenin prominent communists, that's why he called himself a "Marxist-Leninist". --Mayis

Mao

• Similar to Stalin, Mao is also remembered as a state leader. He didn't even call his regime socialist - it was a "People's Republic", a "New Democracy", he, like Stalin, he claimed to be completely following Marx and Lenin. Marx and Lenin were the guides of communism, he claimed to be the humble follower of the great road set by great "prominent communists". He doesn't belong on the template --Mayis
  • From Britannica: "The most far-reaching innovation in Communist doctrine during the period 1953–70 was the Chinese interpretation of Marxism-Leninism known as Maoism." -- Vision Thing -- 18:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The most far reaching? That's gotta be a joke. Anyway, a quote from Britannica isn't gonna prove anything wrong. Try to answer why Mao called what he was doing "People's Republic" and "New Democracy". (Hint: Perhaps because it obviously had nothing to do with communism?) --Mayis
      • This is pure semantics, and illogical semantics at that. If the United States of America spontaneously changed their name to the Communist United States of America, would you claim that they were communist, simply because that's what their name was?
        And just out of interest, which communist doctrine was more "far-reaching" during 1953-70? Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • What Chairman S. said. Why don't you try to answer why Mao called the party he led for some thirty-three years the "Communist Party of China." (Hint: Perhaps because it obviously had something to do with communism?) PubliusFL 01:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Why? Because you can't answer why Mao called what he was doing "People's Republic" and "New Democracy"? That was so predictable. Why did he call his party communist? Because it was the trend by then, he needed allies. Which communist doctrine was more "far-reaching" during 1953-70? Well, possibly Leninism, although it had mostly ceased to be communist really by then. --Mayis
          • Why did Mao use the terms "People's Republic" and "New Democracy"? Because the words "republic" and "democracy" are not necessarily incompatible with communism. Note that Lenin called what he was doing the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." He also wrote that "Soviet government is one of the forms" of "proletarian democracy." So now is Lenin not a "prominent communist" either? Marx wrote that "We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy." Maybe Marx isn't a "prominent communist" either. And neither is Engels, because he wrote that the revolution "above all, will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat." For that matter, neither is Luxemburg, who wrote that the "dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination." If the above is your reason for not considering Mao a "prominent communist," it appears that there is no such thing. PubliusFL 21:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh

• Ho Chi Minh himself admitted that he was a nationalist rather than a communist. He doesn't belong here and hell are we gonna add every party bureaucrat who managed to became a statesman under this topic? --Mayis
  • Again from Britannica: "Ho [Chi Minh] was one of the prime movers of the post-World War II anticolonial movement in Asia and one of the most influential communist leaders of the 20th century." -- Vision Thing -- 18:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If he wasn't a communist, why was he a founding member of the French Communist Party, a ComIntern representative in Hong Kong, and an advisor to the Communist forces in China? PubliusFL 18:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm guessing that if Britannica says something, it must be true. I mean come on, it's Britannica! No, he did not have anything to do with communism, he was a Vietnamese nationalist, Vietnam was a colony and the only people who favored colonial independence were Leninists, so he worked with Leninists but he, as he said, did it all for his nation. --Mayis
      • What did what I say have to do with what Britannica says? I'm talking about Ho Chi Minh's actions. Fewer straw men, please. Do you dispute that he was a founding member of the French Communist Party? That he was a ComIntern representative in Hong Kong? That he advised Communist Chinese forces? That he was a founder of the Communist Party of Vietnam? That the Communist Party of Vietnam later changed its name on orders from ComIntern? PubliusFL 01:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
        • • Publius, you weren't the only person whom I was responding to in what I wrote, that's the Britannica part. Being founder of political parties, and being advisers of military forces and participating in international organizations doesn't make him communist or prominent. Heck, are we gonna add every statesman or party leader or military adviser here? --Mayis
• At some point the argument that Ho Chi Minh claimed to a nationalist as opposed to a communist needs to be backed up by a source. --Soman 11:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is the exact quote: "It was patriotism, not Communism, that inspired me." You can find on many sources, including Wikiquote. --Mayis
    • ...thus you've lied all the time. The quote refers to how Ho Chi Ming first entered the communist movement. There is nothing spectacular about it, all people who joined the communist movement have done it for various reasons. That does not render them of being communists. Moreover patriotism and nationalism are not synonyms. --Soman 20:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I believe this is the complete quote: "At first, it was patriotism, not yet communism which led me to have confidence in Lenin, in the Third International. Step by step, during the course of the struggle, by studying Marxism-Leninism while engaging in practical activities, I gradually understood that only socialism and communism can liberate the oppressed nations and the working people throughout thc world from slavery." Amazing what context can do, eh? PubliusFL 21:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Anton Pannekoek

• Pannekoek was one of the most respected leader of the Second International, he was arguably the most prominent figure of Council Communism which was a very influential movement in May 68, and his works even influenced Lenin on his "State and Revolution". Pannekoek should be in the template. --Mayis

He seems like a reasonable choice, but could we have him without Karl Kautsky, who had a greater influence on the Second International and Lenin, despite then departing from communism? Warofdreams talk 06:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we can have him without Kautsky as Kautsky was never a communist where Pannekoek was. --Mayis

• There is a general problem that sections of the left tend to push a projection that there was a 'golden era' of the revolutionary movement, when it existed in its pure ideological form and before its was corrupted by realpolitik. The actual picture however is different. The communist movement has not been static since the 1920s, and we cannot have a listing of names that largely reflect the factions infights in the formative stage of the Comintern. Pannekoek was a prominent figure during a period of time, he was a person with whom Lenin corresponded (and became an adversary of). If we were to list the 100 most prominent communists of the 20th century, I think he could pass. However, Pannekoek soon became a marginal figure in the international communist movement and is today largely forgotten. Seen on a global scale, council communism is a marginal feature in world politics. --Soman 11:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Antonio Gramsci

• Gramsci was a minor figure in the Italian Communist Party who led the party for two years because he was Stalin's man, and then later was imprisoned, wrote his "notebooks" and then died. He belongs to "Western Philosophers" not "Prominent Communists". --Mayis

On the contrary, Gramsci was an important figure in the Italian Communist Party and was less Stalin's man than Togliatti. But it's a valid question as to whether he is best placed here, or left solely on the Marxism template, as is his better known for his writings than for his actions. Warofdreams talk 06:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

He became a more important figure only after Stalin took power, before that he was really a minor figure and also in the minority of the party. True, Togliatti was really more Stalin's man than Gramsci, but nevertheless, Gramsci owed his party leadership to Stalin and he was in the same faction within the party with Togliatti. I think he belongs to on the Marxism template and also Western Philosophers if there is a template like that, he is better known for his writings than for his actions, as his actions were really minor. --Mayis

Khalid Bakdash

• He was a party bureaucrat and there are hundreds of CP leaders like him, he is not prominent or original in any way. He absolutely should not be in the template. --Mayis
• Bakdash is refered to as the Dean of Arab Communism. He led the Syrian CP at its peak period, and largely defined the character of the Arab communist movement. --Soman 11:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Oh for god's sake, this is not communists parties template, are we gonna add every leader of official CP's here? --Mayis

• • • you missed the section 'defined the character of the Arab communist movement'. His influence stretched far outside of just Syria, his line became that of the Arab communist parties (although this was not entirely uncomplicated, Fahd of Iraqi CP was a challenger in this), for good or bad. --Soman 18:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Well, I would argue that who defined the character of the biggest "communist" movement in the Middle East taday was Hekmat, and official CPs are dying. Bakdash was "just another Leninist". --Mayis

José Carlos Mariátegui

• He was a party bureaucrat and there are hundreds of CP leaders like him, he is not prominent or original in any way. He absolutely should not be in the template. --Mayis

Enrico Berlinguer

• He was a party bureaucrat and there are hundreds of CP leaders like him, he is not prominent or original in any way. He absolutely should not be in the template. --Mayis

Berlinguer seems a strange inclusion; he's hardly predominant even within eurocommunism, and hasn't done much of note. Warofdreams talk 06:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I though Eurocommunist should be represented amongst the personalities. One could argue that Santiago Carrillo should have been included instead, but that would be sligthly awkward as he denounced communist as a later stage. --Soman 18:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • The very program of Eurocommunism is indistinguishable from left social democrats today. It shouldn't even be included as a school of communism. If we are going to list all Leninist party bureaucrats, perhaps we should rename the template to "Marxism-Leninism". --Mayis

Amadeo Bordiga

• Bordiga was the founder of the Italian Communist Party, and later leader of a massive 'Bordigist' international, which was bigger than Trotsky's fourth international. There are still many big organizations in Italy claiming to be Bordigists. He absolutely should be in the template. --Mayis

There is a strong case to include Bordiga; prominent but not uniquely so in the 1920s, he has since been the most enduring figure of left communism. I wonder if, by the same token, we should include Mansoor Hekmat, who seems to have had quite a similar degree of influence? Warofdreams talk 06:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hekmat could also be a good addition along with Bordiga, I'm fine with adding him too. --Mayis

• We could very well open a separate discussion on Hekmat. I would personally oppose including him though. As per Bordiga, it is obvious that Mayis has different criteria for judging size and relevance of organization whether they are left communist or not. He calls (in his early version of International Communist Party) Bordiga's international as 'massive' (with a claimed worldwide membership of 50000). If that is massive on an international scale, then how to classify the PCI when it had 1.8 million members? In difference to Trotsky, Bordiga is largely forgotten today. --Soman 11:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That 50000 was not worldwide, it was only in Italy. The organization was pretty big in other parts of Europe, especially France and Spain, it existed in North America, some parts of South America and North Africa and it had a strong presence in the Middle East. I don't know the exact number in the rest Also, Bordiga is not forgotten, the fact that you don't know about someone doesn't make them forgotten. There are still --Mayis

Well, the 1.8 million was only in Italy as well. 'Pretty big' is well, your own description, as says very little about actual conditions. Lastly, note the wording 'largely forgotten', not 'completly forgotten'. There are groups upholding Bordiga's legacy, but on a global scale they are far smaller than say, those who uphold that of Enver Hoxha (whom I'm not nominating for inclusion in the template). --Soman 18:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• • You forget that Hoxha was yet another statesman who claimed Lenin's legacy. This is not "Marxism-Leninism" template, Lenin is the prominent figure of the Leninist "school" of Communism, the rest are not necessary. Bordiga is a very prominent figure of two particular currents, Bordigism and left communism. Figures of all schools should be represented. --Mayis

All schools should be represented, as long as they're not Stalinism or Maoism, you mean? PubliusFL 21:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nestor Makhno

• Makhno is the most prominent and influential anarcho-communist, a school of communism, and he should be represented in the template. --Mayis
  • He is by no means prominent; in communist movement he is nothing more than a footnote.-- Vision Thing -- 18:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • He was in the anarchist movement, he was the most prominent figure of Anarco-Communism, which is a school of Communism and he is still considered very important today by anarchists. --Mayis

More prominent than Peter Kropotkin? If we are to have an anarcho-communist, it should be him, not Makhno. Warofdreams talk 06:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• So Mayis, why are you happy to include a figure "considered very important today by anarchists", yet unwilling to include Stalin and Mao, both of whom you assert were predominately important to movements other than communism? Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • Well yes, more prominent that Kropotkin, the greatest majority of Anarchists claim to be Platformists (Makhnovists). - I am unwilling to include Stalin and Mao because I think we include enough statesman with Lenin and Trotsky, and Lenin represents Stalin and Mao in the way they too would have preferred. --Mayis

The Picture at the top

It seems that the picture at the top of this template changes daily. We need to decide on what looks better. I will delete this if a topic like this is up here already.

So which one?

Image:Hammer and sickle.svg

Cpv.PNG

I have also seen this on the template:

I like hammer and sickle.svg the most. It is the most well known kind of hammer and sickle.--RainyDayCrow 02:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cpv.PNG cannot be used in a template, as it is a fair use image. I prefer not using Hammer and sickle.svg, as it is directly cropped from the USSR national flag. Estetically i prefer Kolkhoznitsa.jpg. --Soman 10:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer a hammer and sickle, as an actual symbol of communism; the statue photo can potentially be confusing to new readers and doesn't have a good aspect ratio for a top-of-template image; they should be small and roughly square in my opinion. I most like the Image:Hammernsickleredonwhite.PNG and Image:Hammer and sickle.svg; I prefer the shape of the second, but the red-on-white (or, better, red-on-transparent) colour format of the first. I'd go wit the first between them though; the yellow-on-red is, as Red Deathy said, rather Marxist-Leninist. ~Switch ^t 12:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How about Image:Hnsvariation.PNG? --Soman 12:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We must put a hammer and sickle. Cpv.PNG or Hammer and sickle.svg. --Inbloom2 15:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

--Cpv.PNG looks very nice in my opinion, it doesn't seem as if it's cut out of the Soviet flag, it has a more recent and relevant look, which is why I think it is the most appropriate choice. Kolkhoznitsa.jpg is out of question, it is an old, forgotten soviet statue, not a smybol. --Mayis

The symbol of communism is the hammer and sickle, specifically the one that appears on the flag of the USSR. A stylized version, a red-on-white hammer and sickle, or an obscure statue would thus be inappropriate and not widely recognizable. Like it or not, the Soviet Union was the first and most powerful embodiment of communism to ever exist; logically, the emblem on its flag came to be universally associated with the communist movement. -- WGee 22:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Except the USSR doesn't exist anymore, however the communist ideology does. The hammer and sickle that appears on the flag of the USSR is completely outdated. Also, I don't think the usage of Cpv.PNG will be objected by copyright holders - if it does, we can remove it but I think they'll be fine with it. --Mayis

That doesn't matter, banner is not referring only to today's communist ideology and parties. -- Vision Thing -- 20:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Moreover, communism has deep roots in the Soviet Union, and later communist states and communist movements continued and continue to use the hammer and sickle as a symbol of communism. -- WGee 06:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My first choice is Hammer and sickle.svg, second Kolkhoznitsa.jpg. -- Vision Thing -- 20:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I changed the picture yesterday to Image:Hammer and sickle.svg and it has been changed 7 times since, without edit summaries. I prefer Image:Hammer and sickle.svg because it is simple, it is an SVG, and it is free. Image:Kolkhoznitsa.jpg seems reasonable as well. —Dylan Lake 01:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My first choice would be Image:Hammer and sickle.svg. Image:Sickle.gif proposed below would also be ok. We know that Cpv.PNG has copyright problems, so that can't be used; Image:Kolkhoznitsa.jpg suggests that the article is on socialist realism - the people who make up most of the statue have no connection with this template. Warofdreams talk 03:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this one: Image:Sickle.gif? NBAwire:syxx 06:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Allright for . --Inbloom2 15:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If we can't use Cpv.PNG, then I'll be fine with Hnsvariation.PNG --Mayis

I actally like Image:Sickle.gif now that it's been suggested. It's very basic.Let's not use Cpv.PNG it has copy right issues and I personally think it's ugly.--RainyDayCrow 23:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection?

I can't understand why this page is protected in the Stalinist version where the most prominent person who keeps adding his version does not even mostly participate in the talk page. —The preceding Mayis (talk • contribs) 11:27, January 10, 2007 (UTC)

Please see m:The Wrong Version and Wikipedia's protection policy, which states that "protection is not an endorsement of the current version". The template is protected because of the content dispute that doesn't look as though it'll end soon while everybody is able to edit the template freely and simply revert back to a revision they favour. When a consensus has been reached here on the talk page in regards to what the template should look like, it'll be unprotected. J Di 11:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Basic Concepts

Mode of production, Internationalism, Class consciousness, Class struggle, General Strike, Communist revolution, World revolution, Workers Council and Dictatorship of the Proletariat had been removed while giving no reason. Is it thought that those aren't basic concepts of communism or does the person who edited them out is trying to censor every concept which doesn't fit with his liking?

Besides, Leninism is a school of communism, not a basic concept. It is funny when the concepts listed above are not among basic concepts but Leninism and Communist Party is. --Mayis

I agree. The "Basic Concepts" in the protected version are just a disgrace. --Inbloom2 12:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Schools of Communism

Luxemburgism, Council Communism and Anarcho Communism are removed where currents that claim to be Leninism, like Maoism and Eurocommunism are added. Why? --Mayis

Left Communism (although this is broad concept) gets to represent that tendency as a whole. Luxemburgism never took of as a separate political tendency. Anarcho-Communism is rather a subtrend of anarchism than of communism. --Soman 11:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutly no reason to delete some communist schools, including Anarcho-communism, since it's a template:communism and not a template:marxism. So, Leninism - Trotskyism - Left communism - Council communism - Luxemburgism - Anarchist communism, must be under "Schools of communism". --Inbloom2 12:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Communist Organizations

The entire section is removed, why? --Mayis

Proposal for the template

User:Inbloom2/Template --Inbloom2 12:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I would propose that, in addition to your template, we can create a "Stalinism" or "Marxism-Leninism" or "Communist Parties and States" or "World Communist Movement" etc. template and a "Left Communism" template for fair representation of all those views as clearly Stalinists and anti-communists want to represent only their take on "communism" and censor the representation of other currents and they won't settle with this proposal. Trotskyism has its own template and it seems to be working well. --Mayis

There are already several 'communist party' templates, such as Template:European communist parties, Template:Middle East communist parties, Template:Communist Parties of South America. --Soman 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Who's censoring what, Mayis? You're the only one who seems to be trying to keep things OUT. This is positively Orwellian. PubliusFL 21:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Everyone else wants to keep as much as possible in the template, whilst Mayis, you want to remove half the template in order to push your own POV. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Any comment on my proposal ? For the picture, I quite agree with RainyDayCrow. --Inbloom2 00:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In order to avoid POV disputes, this template should be as inclusive as possible—though not ridiculously long, of course. In that respect, I like Inbloom2's version. However, I do not approve of the white-on-red hammer and sickle. As I've said before, the symbol of communism is specifically the hammer and sickle that appeared on the flag of the USSR, since the Bolsheviks were the people who popularized the hammer and sickle in the first place. Plus, I'm sure the yellow-on-red hammer and sickle is the most easily recognizeable among the non-communists who comprise the bulk of this encyclopedia. -- WGee 06:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a minority POV template. It suggests that Stalin, Mao and Ho are not prominent communists, and if we are to include some minor schools like Council communism, Stalinism and Maoism should definitely be included too. Also, I prefer Hammer and sickle.svg image. -- Vision Thing -- 19:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a well-established truth on wikipedia that any attempt to reach agreement on a list of "prominent -ists" will inevitably end in abject failure. I have personally witnessed failures to agree on prominent conservatives, prominent liberals and prominent christian democrats. The communist movement is better defined than those three, but it also has deeper divisions between groups who wish to excommunicate each other (liberalism is the only one that comes close, with classical liberals endlessly claiming to be the only "true" liberals).

We should consider ourselves lucky that there are at least three communists that everyone can agree on (Marx, Engels and Lenin). That is already three more than most other ideologies can manage. I would like to warn you that trying to agree on any other prominent communists beyond those three is a waste of your time. The dispute will only end when everyone gets tired and leaves. So, let's save ourselves some time and effort by limiting the list of prominent communists to Marx, Engels and Lenin, or removing it altogether. -- Nikodemos 03:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: let's limit the list to Marx, Engels, and Lenin. -- WGee 07:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Rosa Luxemburg is also absolutly legitimate. --Inbloom2 12:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Template should include all prominent communists or none at all. By naming just a few we would be suggesting that others are not prominent, and that's not true. -- Vision Thing -- 12:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

According to who ? --Inbloom2 12:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

According to mainstream sources. -- Vision Thing -- 12:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Who decides it's mainstream ? Who checks if it's true or not ? --Inbloom2 12:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing that, for example, Britannica is not a mainstream source? -- Vision Thing -- 12:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If "the template should include all prominent communists or none at all", I vote for none at all. -- Nikodemos 01:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

We also had this kind of inclusion issue with the template:ideology. We solved by laying down clear criteria for inclusion based on verifiable external sources for notability. See here I would advise you to do the same: use the index of a handbook on the history of communism to decide on which goes and what is included. C mon 20:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

We can like it or not but in my opinion Stalin should be included. Being myself from a FSU country I can assure you that in FSU most of the persons who consider themselves as communists are still loyal to Stalin, expecially in Russia and in Ukraine. Try to exchange two words with a russian Communist and you'll see that in 90% of the cases he/she is loyal to Stalin. Not to mention that there is a lot of people in FSU who still like Stalin, independently from the fact if they are communists or not. In some cases it seems to me that he is the most popular leader of USSR, in particular among elder people. If we don't take into consideration this, we make a mistake. We have to recognize his importance, even if we consider him a negative figure. Just my opinion.(Limonlimone 19:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

To summarize the issue of prominent communists

In order to try to settle the issue of prominent communists, I (Alain10 18:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)) tried to read the whole arguments and to summarize them. I propose that each side modifies its part of this paragraph, so that all arguments of each side is clearly summarized, while at the same time (i know it is tough) keeping it short. Maybe it will help, or maybe this will be useful for later conflict resolution:

Arguments against Stalin being mentioned

• Stalinism is not a school of communism.
• When you look at the article on communism, it says "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization", so the idea of a communist state would be an oxymoron, no?
• Stalinism is socialism, not communism.
• Stalin was actually nothing more than an fascist. There`s a clear difference in the way Soviet was run before and during Stalin´s regime. In this, in the murders and paranoia, we see who truly was the proper communist among the two. The main relationship between Stalin and communisqm is that he killed over 100.000 communists.
• Calling a state communist doesn't make it so.
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not wikiality as decided by popular uneducated opinion.

Arguments in favor of having Stalin and others there

• We're not talking about the reality and theory of a political ideology, nor is this a technicality. We're talking about the reality, and defintion of a political ideology, which is a huge difference.
• This is a template about politics. We are talking here about actual politics, not ideology. Some marxist purists or ideologues could argue that Stalin was not a communist after all, but this goes against the common understanding that he was the boss of the communist world.
• Wikipedia policy is to use word according to their ordinary meaning, not fancy ideological one.
• The point is to use common language, not esoteric Marxist one.
• The template is for "Communism," not "Marxism." The relationship between what Stalin and Mao did and what Marx said is interesting, but not determinative.
• Everybody associates Stalin with Communism.
• The USSR, the rest of the Warsaw Pact states, the People's Republic of China, and Vietnam are and have been widely referred to as "Communist states."
• The fact is, during the reign of Stalin, the vast majority of international Communist parties worldwide supported him and his regime - the Communist Party of Russia. Stalin, regardless of whether you believe he represented the 'true ideals' of Marxism/communism/whatever, was an extremely prominent member of the Communist movement.
• Stalin is inextricably linked to Communism, not least because he was the leader of the Russian 'Communist Party'
• He must easily be the most prominent person to lead a Communist party (Time Magazine's Man of the Year? - how many other communist leaders have received that?) - consequently, he should be included on this template.
• Furthermore, if one follows the logic that Stalin is not a communist because his ideals did not match those espoused by communism, couldn't the exact same argument be made to exclude Lenin, Trotsky, or Bordiga? I'm sure there would be many Council or Anarcho-communists who would see the ideals of Marxist-Leninism to be antithetical to those of Marx and Engels. Similarly, there would be many Marxist-Leninists disapproving of Bordiga and Pannekoek being considered prominent communists (as opposed to revisionists).
• Trotskyism, Stalinism and Leninism are all movements inside the Communist Movement, and all of them are socialist regimes. If the presence of a state contradicts the Communist movement, then neither Trotsky nor Lenin are communists. Kim Il Sung was a socialist dictator with a Communist ideology.
• If one discounted Stalin by the fact he was a dictator, one would also have to discount every Communist party who followed the line of the Comintern, and every Communist party that was a part of the the Third Period and Popular Front campaigns. It would be ludicrous to suggest that these parties were not members of the Communist movement.
• By stating that Stalin was not a communist, one is simply inserting POV into the template -because you are determining (by your own biased standards), who is a 'true communist' and who is not.
• It becomes a little bit like saying that the Pope isn't Christian (which some hardcore protestants might feel and argue).In Sweden there is a small fringe group (Maranata) that sometimes barges into ceremonies of the mainstream lutheran church, shouting slogans like 'this is the house of the devil!'. In their theological analysis, the Church of Sweden is not not a Christian church. I suppose that if you'd sit down and argue with them, that they could provide lengthy arguments for their case. By your logic, their fringe POV would dictate the definition of 'Christianity' at wikipedia.

Bizarre addition

Apparently the addition of Islamic communism to the template was serious, so I'm posting here to find out what explanation there is for it. Bearing in mind that a large number of relevant topics are omitted for reason of space, I'm fascinated to here why we would ever want a link to a redirect on here! This is leaving aside that the editor who added it completely failed to follow the instructions at the bottom of the template ("{{Communism sidebar}} exists as an alternate version of this template. Any content changes made here should be made there as well.") Warofdreams talk 09:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You discuss now about it's place? If that is the problem then I can easily put it there as well. And you do not need to revert it, instead of that you could add it also in the sidebar of the Communism template.Runehelmet (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That is not the main point which I make above. Please give your reasons as to why this is such an important topic, despite not having an article, that it should be included in this template. Although I've raised this both in my original edit summary and on this talk page, you have failed to give a single reason. Warofdreams talk 15:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all I did not "fail" to give you a reason. If you had read the edit summary you should know that Socialism and Islam and Islam and Communism are the same. And because it contains a redirection it does not mean that it is insignificant.Runehelmet (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That is not a reason for its inclusion. Do you have one? As I have said, not every topic related to communism can be included on this template - many are omitted. Why should this one be added? Also, I strongly suggest reading communism and socialism if you believe that they are the same thing. Warofdreams talk 22:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)