From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon communism.svg

This Communism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>

Possibly awkward subtitle or organization[edit]

The first subtitle "What communism 'actually is,'" is somewhat a misnomer, and the information under it at best could be described as "attempts at communism." For example, Stalin or Stalinism is ideologically very far from the original Communist mindset (i.e. a big spinoff.) Without changing that subtitle, a lot of the information could be moved under "Communism in practice."

I fully agree: there is a common misunderstanding. For example USSR had never been and had never named itself as state of communism (there is no "C" in its name). It were state of socialism, which where building communism (but failed) under the lead of Communist Party. So it was communist's state, but not communism. And Staling himself mentioned many times that communism where far, far away to future (generations) for him. And by his written opinion all what he was doing - building economical, social and cultural base for it. So when talking about wat communism 'actually is,' one should tell about theoretical descriptions of society where means of production (not personal property) are owned by community. Or change the title.

John Lennon a Marxist?[edit]

Maybe to assclowns like Nate Shapiro, but it doesn't withstand even a cursory review of his ideas. "Revolution" was a polemic against the Maoist fad in Britain in 1968 and "Imagine" was seen as utopian nonsense by radicals.

Renaming the page to Marxism-Leninism and create a brand new page that does not ignore non-marxist communists[edit]

Title of the topic. The page is far too focused on Marxism-Leninism and effectively ignores all the libertarian and anarchist developments of communism.

If anyone wants to work with me on this message me here (or preferably on discord). Codefuser (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

We mostly cover those ideologies under anarchism, left libertarianism(or as they call it, "actual" libertarianism), specifically without the "no government at all" aspect, has been pretty poorly spelled out in broader discourse, and I can't think of a political philosopher who pitches it, and what form it would take. And, though this is sort of lazy, it's easier to cover national governing practices that have actually existed in the past than purely hypothetical future ones. Because there's a lot of those. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Kropotkin, Chomsky, Dejacque, etc etc. Would it not still be better to include such as to be more reflective of communism as a whole rather than just what most would recognize as simply state capitalism rather than communism? Codefuser (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

This page is incredibly biased against communism[edit]

I changed the language to make it less biased and my edits keep getting reversed — Unsigned, by: Simoneh / talk / contribs

We're also biased against Nazis, Libertarians, Capitalism, and Religion. What's your point? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Probably for less bias. :D — Dysk (contribs) 02:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah and making the comparison to Nazism is silly because Nazism is a hateful ideology that calls for the death of minorities. — Unsigned, by: Simoneh / talk / contribs
Well some extreme forms of Communism are a bit like that (eg. Nazbols), and making wide generalizations isn't very rational. Certainly there is room for improvement. — Dysk (contribs) 18:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Nazbols don't have the goal of Communism tho. They are plain socially far-right nationalists with a leftist economic model that want a strong nation like USSR, with the dominance of Russia. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The single best thing you can do for biased articles, that people coming to this wiki with that complaint usually don't, is be specific about ways bias could be reduced while adhering to rationalwiki's mission. We're not gonna conveniently forget that Stalin was both hyper-authoritarian and a really important communist, but if there's an important omission or misrepresentation in the article, we'd love to fix it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay well lets start with this passage from the lead section;
Western Communist parties after the fall of the Soviet Union are basically historical reenactment societies that lack the self-awareness to realize it.
Now what is this supposed to mean? Why the distinction of Western parties? Which parties? What piece of history is being re-enacted? If this is a reference to tankies then sure, but it doesn't say that. — Dysk (contribs) 10:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
It's someone's "clever" insight. It's meaningless. Toss as you wish. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the first poster. Anyone who believes that the USSR was socialist/communist because it claimed to be is as intellectually mature as someone who believes that North Korea is a democracy because it claims to be. I should not have to point this out on a website that claims to espouse rationality. Frust (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say some amount of government officials and regular citizens genuinely thought the USSR was working to create communism, and actively supported it to that end. The question always becomes a demarcation problem. What realistic standard allows you to decide a society(if not a nation) is communist? Is the United States not a liberal democracy because it doesn't grant totally universal suffrage(I might say yes, but still). Is it not capitalist because there are restrictions on what you can do on your own private property?
Many of the social goods that happened to citizens of the USSR(rapid transition to universal literacy, huge increases in standards of living, rapid industrialization) were done nominally to propagate communism. Many of the evils were a mixture of incompetence, self deceit, and malice like everywhere else. What actually is your standard? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracy[edit]

The quote at the top of this page is incorrectly attributed to Karl Marx. As stated in another article, the quote actually came from Louis Blanc. I can't edit this page to change this, though. Baphód (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

ye EK (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
ye ℕoir LeSable (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

User comment[edit]

This page is incredibly inaccurate and obviously opinionated. Communism =/= totalitarianism. To get rid of fascism, you have to use fascist methods. Just as you do with political opposition. I mean yeah, communist regimes may have been excessive when it came to political repression.

Something that I learned from attempting to debate against anticommunism is that playing the numbers game is STUPID. "100 million" died from Communism, when you can easily say 1.6 billion died from Capitalism, through imperialistic or directly capitalist means. Also the numbers "100 million" is statistical manipulation.

The video may be flawed in that it doesn't take all the deaths attributed to Capitalism, and some of the numbers are exaggerated. However I can tell you that the death toll from Capitalism is higher than 100 million. — Unsigned, by: OGAS is bae, OGAS is god / talk / contribs

Which specific statements in the article do you disagree with? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The BoN is correct[edit]

This article is about Marxism-Leninism, despite the misleading title, @DuceMoosolini. Oxyaena Harass 20:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Marxism Leninism is communism. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
That's a remarkably unnuanced view. Oxyaena Harass 23:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini can you please consider opening a book and reading about what "Communism" is? Your unbased bias doesn't make any sense. User:Comrade-yutyo

Communism isn't the system implemented but the goal[edit]

I am a person that admires political correctness, so I try to change several confusions regarding the usage of the word "Communism" as "Marxism/Leninism", as many of the states mentioned weren't communist but marxist/leninist centrally planned economies. I have tried to change and contribute twice, and also discussed with the mods in the Discord and agreed on my changes, yet some people like DuceMoosoloni revert my changes. --Comrade-yutyo (talk)

Your edits are appreciated. Oxyaena Harass 21:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
These edits are blatant whitewashing. I’m tired of this crap happening every two months. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing to whitewash about Communism, as it isn't a dirty thing. Its quite visible you don't have clue about what it is. Btw, I suggest you to stop whitewashing of US president that you have done on your personal page instead of reverting people's contributions based on your bias. User:Comrade-yutyo
@DuceMoosolini I guess I can change the false title of "Communism as implemented" to "Marxism/Leninism as implemented", hoping that you won't put me to a vandal bin, block, discriminate, threat or revoke any of my titles, just like how "authoritarian dictators of shitty ideologies" do, huh? --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
What the hell are you even talking about? And no, I won't agree with you changing the title of the section. Stop trying to revive an issue that has already been resolved by more responsible users. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Do you assign yourself as responsible, after all of the violations you have done as a sysop? Also it doesn't matter if you agree or not. I really don't wanna repeat myself as you are so woody to not understand the basic fact, and not being even aware of Communist Manifesto which is what Communism is all about, yet you are a self-declared Communism expert, just like this guy. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Stop with the hyperbolic accusations. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 21:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it is needed to be said to User:DuceMoosolini, who is acting like this guy. My strongest reference is The Communist Manifesto in this argument, which is clearly visible to be not read by this particular user. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Once again I must ask the community[edit]

Should we keep the whitewashing edits or remove them? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 09:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, all whitewashing stuff should be deleted, which includes mostly your arguments regarding your beloved politicians. The changes I make here tho, are politically correct and neutral. User:Comrade-yutyo

Okay, I have a comprise solution-yutyo can win their inexplicable moral crusade and specify where Leninism and communism diverge, but we should have some note that it is easy to conflate the two because more or less every globally relevant communist movement has been Leninist. Things like anarcho-communism are really just the creations of a few bloggers and theorists kept alive on online forums who have no major political presence in the real world.Flandres (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong! The IWW, antifa, and the SRA say hello, @Flandres. Oxyaena Harass 13:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Because those organisations are totally relevant and capable of bringing about the Ancom utopia. Try again, oxy.Flandres (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Exactly @Flanders, and there is the fact that Anarcho-Communists generally set a socialist government that can even use market socialism, in order to achieve Communism in the future, thus basing Lenin's rhetoric about the subject. Free State of Ukraine — Unsigned, by: Comrade-yutyo / talk / contribs
I'll copy what I said somewhere else on this matter to here:
my main argument to keep it named communism is because when most people think of communism, they think of well, marxism/leninism because for almost all historical implementations of it, that is what we'd be referring to
stalinism/leninism/castroism hell, even maoism, all of those use marxism/leninism as their base template for their beliefs
aka a revolution with a vanguard party afterwards
if you want to point people to something that's not as revolutionary in your beliefs (because quite frankly, to me the entire renaming to ML is whitewashing the revolutionary aspects of communism by downplaying the disasters that revolutions tend to cause), we have a page on socialism
and for a different argument: lets say that someone curious about political ideologies but with like, a basic history lesson on capitalism and communism ends up stumbling across rationalwiki and checks out our communism page. we have a really good page about the criticism of capitalism and it's pretty much in-line with what you'd likely be thinking about when you're talking about capitalism to someone with only that basic education.
right now, our communism page is much the same. communism is still in line with what most people would think of when they look at what they have been thought: a revolutionary "dictatorship of the proletariat" style ideology with a Party that decides things. if we were to rename everything to ML, we'd be getting into really awkward hairsplitting that would confuse someone new to the concepts of communism/socialism/marxism and the differences between those (and would likely cause quite a number of "i thought this was RATIONALwiki" people to pop up). just because technically communism refers to that utopian society that communists want to achieve, it's not what people think of when they think about communism. to some extent, the meaning we give words is well, what they mean and the majority of society doesn't think that communism is that utopian society, it's something I purely see referred to from communists. they think about well... marxism leninism and to some extent that means that the definition of communism in popular language is marxism leninism.
this is why i think that if you seek to achieve a goal of that specific style of utopian society, you'd have to pretty much rename your ideology away from communism. socialism is a good example of a rename that i think mostly worked, because historically socialism is more about not doing a revolution (because revolutions tend to be fucking disasters).
So in my opinion, we shouldn't start hairsplitting these terms and keep it as Communism. This page is about that specific version of the ideology at it's core anyway. Our page on socialism is more about that utopic society that communists generally seem to want. This page is at it's core focused on how historically communism has been developed as an ideology and how thus far all of it's implementations have with extremely few exceptions turned out to be a mess. Whether you call it Marxism/Leninism, Castroism, Maoism or Stalinism, the end result is much the same: they historically have almost never succeeded in any form. That's all I have to add and why I'm on Duce's side here. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 10:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
That is bullshit tho, as referring to a thing as it is known in the public doesn't make it what it is. Communism isn't the name of the system which is implemented in the history, but centrally planned socialist economies and/or marker socialism are used with the promised of it. It shouldn't be forgotten ( otherwise its Anachronism) that most of those countries were founded at a time when Keynesian economic model was famous. So the bs argument that matches Communism with Planned Economy is invalid. If you keep the way of the wiki as "how most of the people think", then change the purposes of RationalWiki. User:Comrade-yutyo
Our purpose and goal, as stated on the frontpage is "analyzing and refuting pseudoscience, documenting cranks, exploring authoritarianism and how these subjects are handled in the media". Communism has a long history of creating authoritarian dictatorships and to say "it's just ML" is hairsplitting and whitewashing the fact that the amount of succesful communist regimes can be counted on two hands and only if you add a ton of asterisks to that definition. This page is about the ideology as it has worked out in practice. If you want to have an argument about the society that communism as the "larger thing" (so also folding in democratic socialism and the like) go to the socialism page, that's where that is documented and last I checked, we have a much more positive tone about that type of society in that article. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 12:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Bruh. Communism isn't the "subsection" of Socialism tho. Its entirely a different system of social and economic life. Having a "good tone" about Socialism, which isn't Communism hasn't got anything to do with this subject. Also, Communism isn't dependent to Socialism, as politicians like Bernstein had abandoned socialism and kept Communism as a long-term goal within his new line of Social Democracy, that still has the same line of co-existing with Capitalist Free Market economy. You have even reverted that line tho, even I have added a real reference to the subject. A response to your Comment Summary: Yes, I defend Communism from unsourced non-based bias and I don't see anything wrong with it. People have the right to know that Communism doesn't mean Planned economy, as it is a purpose of RationalWiki to solve confusions. I hope you open a book about the subject and care about political corretness, as (as you said) many people may have non-correct ideas and views regarding an ideology and affiliate that with something that it isn't (as you do). User:Comrade-yutyo
Ah, sorry about that. Yeah that was a good edit. I'll add that right back in. The problem is that you keep doing these sweeping changes and then insert some small actually positive change, which means when reverting we'll have to keep cherry picking your useful edit back in. I overlooked that one. I protected the page because you're edit warring over it. What comment summary are you even talking about. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 12:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
What is the problem about other changes of me, sorry? Its an obvious fact that Communism isn't the planned economy and saying the contrary is a logical fallacy and lack of knowledge. I insist about everything that you guys have reverted without based arguments. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
P.S: I am waiting for some admin and/or qualified person to review my changes and accept them all. Political corretness is a very important part of this wiki, as it was opened as an act against Conservapedia, yet you act like those guys over there, who also thinks Communism is the name of the marxist/leninist planned economy and also a literal dictatorship. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Cosmikdebris You forgot to sign your post about signing posts... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
One a second look, you used Wikipedia as a source. Not adding it, I'd like a more concrete source than Wikipedia. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 12:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more explicit[edit]

Some of us haven't followed this page, and don't know what the disputed edits actually are. The jist or exerpts are fine to establish what you mean. I don't need a full cataloging. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarifying what this article is actually about isn't whitewashing. Oxyaena Harass 14:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ikanreed Basically, massive renames to a lot of elements on the page to be specifically about Marxism/Leninism, notably the critique section as well as removing the "short answer: no" part of it, as well as the usual "it's not really communism" stuff. This specific user also wants to make FOSS a derivative of Communism (which it isn't). That's... it in a nutshell. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 14:22, 29 April 2020 (
Because it's not, communism was the end goal, the USSR, the PRC, and other so called "communist states" weren't communist yet, they acknowledged that themselves. This whole article is shitty, and reads like something from an ultra-libby edgelord. I`m tired of all the idiots defending it here, any attempt to make it more accurate always gets shot down. Oxyaena Harass 14:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I've gotta say that sounds like legitimately different ideological perspectives moreso than whitewashing. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 12:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@The Crow I am not trying to show ”FOSS” (Which is a false usage btw. Free Software and OpenSource are different terms) as an example of “communism” which isn’t. You probably mean Copyleft as a such, but the copyright protection used by Telecommunist manifesto is actually called copyfarleft, which opposes copyleft. I have added Stallman as an example at this page because he had mentioned communism as sharing in the documentary called ”Revolution OS”.
Also, as other people say, fixing an error and providing a fact isn’t whitewashing. This article is completely biased and looks like taken from Conservapedia. I think its our right to demand change as RationalWiki is found for that reason. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ikanreed That's because it is, Duce proposed a compromise on my talk page which I accepted. Oxyaena Harass 14:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Comrade-yutyo @Oxyaena - It's often said that one only achieves moments of clarity after taking a moment to ponder things. So, I did just that. Here's my conclusion: I'm not opposed to making it more clear we're referring to cases of Marxism-Leninism in our criticism section (although I do object to changing the header of the entry, since that makes it appear that we're only criticizing ML whereas there might be valid criticism of other types of communism that could be mentioned as well as the removal of the "short answer: no" part, I believe those two elements should stay). However, I do feel that we should mention somewhere in the lede that the majority of historical regimes were Marxist-Leninist regimes and what most people historically know about communism comes from those types of regimes. Also, no. The Free Software movement is not a derivative of communist ideologies. It originated from hacker cultures in the 1980s. Don't list it as a derivative when it isn't. Stallman might be sympathethic to the idea of communism in terms of sharing, but that doesn't make the Free Software movement a derivative of communism, since well... history proves it isn't. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 16:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The "well: no" section is wrong plain and simple, and only applies to Marxist-Leninist regimes. Oxyaena Harass 17:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Examples of non-shitty communism?[edit]

Could we have some examples of non-shitty communism? Are there any examples outside of democratically-elected communist governments in India? Italy, perhaps? Bongolian (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Catch 22, a bit there. If your government changes hands all the time, how can it be a nominally communist government, unless every single political faction in the country is also communist? Socialist political leaders who get elected by legitimate popular vote tend to get deposed in coups; there's like 2 exceptions and they're working on one of them. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I know there are plenty of non-shitty communist ideologies, but I'm still gonna need help from Oxy on this, as she is more knowledgeable on these subjects than I. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Communism isn't shitty already. It is the name of the classless, stateless society. This and this is what the shit looks like. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, multiple, including the Korean Anarchist Association, multiple different anarchist communes, the libertarian socialist society of the Zapatistas, and Rojava. Hell, the USSR itself was actually democratic (worker councils called "soviets" ultimately called the shots, it's complicated) (although not necessarily libertarian) until Stalin came along, and Cuba is probably the only example where Marxism-Leninism actually works in practice. Oxyaena Harass 22:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
From what I know of Communist theory this is correct. The USSR and its associated Blocs almost always billed themselves as "Socialist" and promised that "Communism would happen any day now". The confusion arises due to the leaders of the Western powers' using the "Communism" interchangeably with "Socialism", while understanding neither in a academic sense. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, excatly! So why not solving that error at this page and every fix that is made is blindly reverted by a specific guy that has admiration to an italian dictator? --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Will you please stop poisoning the well? That's been explained multiple times, and asserting it repeatedly does not make it so. And this level of hyperbole is really starting to annoy me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we please fix those politically incorrect terms? That is what many of the people want as they feel discriminated. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If you don't call people what they call themselves and what the outside world also calls them, that's entering into No True Scotsman territory. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Communist Party of China, and Mongolian People's Party had decades to create communist states, so either textbook-communism is effectively unattainable or what they did create was it. Bongolian (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, it's more complex than what you say. I don't wanna repeat myself. Oxyaena Harass 13:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with her on this. @Bongolian contrary to what you say you are doing the same fallacy you charge me. You refer to marxism/leninism, which is a branch of socialism that has the goal of communism, as Communism itself. You associate the tool with the cause. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Since communism hasn't been tried out according to theory, that should have ended the debate. Since it didn't, here's some socialist societies that worked out better, even though there not communist: Catalonia (1936-1939), Zapatista controlled Chiapas (1994-now), Marinaleda and Yugoslavia (1945-1991).--Boredsocialist (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

the USSR, maoist China, and other countries all attempted communism. It definitely has been "tried out" EK (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@Boredsocialist The Catalonian anarchists were anarcho-syndicalists, a variant of anarcho-communism. Oxyaena Harass 03:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@EK Just because something says it's something doesn't mean it is that. Is North Korea democratic because its in their name? No. Were the Nazis socialist because it was in their name? No. China and the USSR didn't have a stateless or moneyless society--Boredsocialist (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

How can Communism not be Authoritarian?[edit]

I mean, it's all about being a slave to the system, just like in capitalism. Both aren't that much different from each others. 2003:C3:3741:1600:E0A1:C185:51E6:E4DF (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Define Communism please. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
You uh don't know jack about shit regarding communism. Only in genuine communism are we truly free from need and want, the thing is all so-called "communist" states openly admit(ted) that they were merely "transitional states" to communism, not genuine communism. They billed themselves as socialist, whether they were or not is a matter of debate, but this isn't the place for that discussion. Oxyaena Harass 18:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
So communism is like heaven but for atheists? Being free from want is contrary to human nature. Bongolian (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear friend, I am neither Capitalist nor Communist. I am an independent thinker 2003:C3:3741:1600:2D51:F5F8:EB4C:D4B1 (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Define Communism please. Or leave the discussion. I can answer the original question, but only if the BoN defines their terms. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Bongolian "Free from want" is metaphorical, communism is essentially anything resembling a post-scarcity society plus the presence of no states and/or classes. It's not arguably achievable now, but socialism is. Oxyaena Harass 22:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

To quote Wikipedia[edit]

In his critique of states run under Marxist–Leninist ideology, economist Michael Ellman of the University of Amsterdam notes that such states compared favorably with Western states in some health indicators such as infant mortality and life expectancy.[159] Philipp Ther [de] posits that there was an increase in the standard of living throughout Eastern Bloc countries as the result of modernization programs under communist governments.[160] Similarly, Amartya Sen's own analysis of international comparisons of life expectancy found that several Marxist–Leninist states made significant gains and commented "one thought that is bound to occur is that communism is good for poverty removal".[161] The dissolution of the Soviet Union was followed by a rapid increase in poverty,[162][163][164] crime,[165][166] corruption,[167][168] unemployment,[169] homelessness,[170][171] rates of disease[172][173][174] and income inequality,[175] along with decreases in calorie intake, life expectancy, adult literacy and income.[176]

How is communism a bad thing again? Oxyaena Harass 16:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Serious answer: various other very real problems that the Soviet Union had. Oh man, can you imagine if the US government just grabbed random people off the street and ran them off to undisclosed locations for expressing opinions hostile to the state, though? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ikanreed I can't possibly imagine such a thing occurring in the US. I'm very glad it only happens in other countries and has never happened here. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Funnily enough, another similarity between Communists and Trump: They both like to use walls to prevent freedom of movement. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 17:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
You mean Marxist-Leninists, which is the my whole gripe in the first place. Oxyaena Harass 18:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
No, I meant Communists. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 18:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Your consistency with respect to refusing to understand what people mean even after they clarify is commendable. No the other word. Contemptible. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 19:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Communism has almost always been lost in the implementation phase. Just about everyone who tries it gets lost in the "complete power needed to restructure society" thing. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Catalonia says hello. Oxyaena Harass 18:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I too like to defend Marxist-Leninist states for their track record of criminalising homosexuality, murdering hundreds of thousands sometimes millions of people for political reasons, forcing vagrants to work in labour camps, getting rid of those pesky kulaks and conducting ethnic cleansing on a genocidal scale, operating highly authoritarian military police states that kill anyone who disobeys state orders that often lead to people being starved or worked to death, and having no human rights and brutal prisons where the death rate was five thousand percent or more higher than the US prison system. Supporting this is why I'm an anarchist, communism is good actually. — Z 18:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I too am an anarchist. — Godless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 18:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Fuck off, Raven. I never defended anything, introducing nuance into a conversation does not equal it being a defense. Oxyaena Harass 18:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
So the communist state of the USSR was good? Yes? No? Anarchist @OxyaenaGodless Raven SDAPOe logo.svg talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 Flag of Europe.svg 19:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Troll Oxyaena Harass 04:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Raven, what do you mean by anarchist? Your page has Keynesian economics, not mutualism or anarcho-communism/syndicalism --Boredsocialist (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

He was being sarcastic at the time. You might not want to revive this dispute.-Flandres (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Flandres Yeah, you're right. He was being sarcastic and I shouldn't have done that. --Boredsocialist (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't we create a seperate page?[edit]

Most criticisms here are for Marxism-Leninism, which isn't communism but state socialism. We should move alot of our criticisms to new pages labeled things like Maoism or Marxism-Leninism and make new criticisms based on the validity of a moneyless and marketless society.--Boredsocialist (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

i am under the impression that communism is the end goal, with the various states labelled communist being works in progress, having not yet reached the theorised utopia. that said the people running these states have communism as the end goal. china has communism as it stated end goal. ergo they are communist. russia an china cast long shadows and what most people think of communism is based on russia and china. that is communism for a lot of people, like it or not.
i do have issue with the article though, not just the article, but its serves as a helpful illustration of whats been gnawing at me for a while.
i am not so much concerned with the theory and argument over what was envisaged by marx, or a critique of said theory, there are issue with all of that in the article but not the root of my complaint.
i am more greautly bothered the practice and how it has been represented. the potted history that we give of the rise of soviet russia, of its failings, and of the triumph of capitalism is fundementality flawed. really so massively flawed that any conclusion we draw from the history as presented here are deeply flawed.
ive always had issue with the way human rights abuses and and the horrific genocides are often presented. namely these things happened because of communism, and communism is bad because these things happened. its never explained by anyone how this is inherent to communism, but it is very strongly implied to be so. very often hysterically so. i am referring to on wiki debates, not respected historians and the like, i should add. whats always missing is context. what did the world look like time? what preceded such horrors? what drives people to be complicit with it? to participate?
ideology does not cut it for me. indeed it is rarely discussed, only to apportion blame. to point and say look what they did. look at their brutality. its such a shallow argument. its a lazy argument. its like when we paint nazis responsible for the holocaust as extraordinarily evil, when the reality is of normal everyday human beings complicit in atrocities.
what i feel is lacking here, is a history lesson. the world that birthed such brutalities was itself drenched in blood, and we barely even mention what is so significant, so intrinsic to the brutalities that followed.
lets look at russia. the tsarist empire died in midst of world war one, one the bloodiest conflicts in human history. leading directly to one the most brutal and costly civil wars. no sooner is that over but the ruined land, struggling to rebuild a vast country with regular famines, has to contend with the bloodiest conflict in human history.
lets look at china. after years of exploitation by colonial powers, and of factional disputes amongst warlords, a brutal civil war erupts, only interrupted by a brutal invasion, leaving millions dead and the country ruined.
lets look at north korea. theres a reason why nrth korea hate america. formed after the us arbitrarily split korea in to to fuck over the russians, it sowed the seeds for a war where the us carpet bombed, and fire bombed the entirety of north so no building was left standing and was left a desert, its people reduced to living in mud huts and dug outs for survival. 12% percent of the population killed, some 10 million people. 635000 tons of bombs were dropped - only 500000 tons were dropped in the pacific theatre during all of ww2.
lets look at cambodia. a civil war and the us makes cambodia one of the most heavily bombed places on earth, second only to laos.
can you see my point? these are regimes that were born out of the most extreme brutalities. we barely mention any of it. we cannot begin to talk deviations from 'what marx intended' while glossing over the realities that communist regimes arose from and found themselves in. not just communists either - these conflicts have been the defining feature of the 20th century an the world we live in today.
this leads to the failure of communism and the triumph of capitalism - of the soviets meeting its match in the us, and ulitmately losing out is not an accurate narrative either. this was not a race of equals starting at the same time, with the capitalist west pulling ahead. tsarist russia was a backward backwater, not starting to industrialise till a little before ww1. the capitalist west had decades of a head start. the us was untouched by war, but russia faced 2 world wars and a civil war and it still went toe to toe with the us during the cold war, only faltering towards the end. the us had all the advantages, especially after ww2, in which russian industrial power was key to victory over the nazis, moving whole factories thousands of miles to evade the german, while the us was not even bombed on the mainland. communism wasnt a failure, it was an industrial triumph for russia. look at where china was and to what it is now after all that it has endured. quibble over the terms, of what is and is not communism, but if you are seeing failure here, then you are not looking.
you do not have to like communism or deny any crimes done in its name. but to discuss what it means in reality, we should at the very least be honest about it. i have not yet conidered how this might be incorperated into our article AMassiveGay (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay Fair enough, colloquially that's how a lot of people see communism. But it's still this interpretation that's scholarly, and we're meant to educate people, not assure what they think they know. Still, they shouldn't have done things like lock up political dissidents,start gulags and so on. Being bombed by the US and being stuck in a backwater doesn't justify things that they did. China killed millions it didn't like, then converted to a neoliberal hellhole. Rojava, Catalonia and Zapatistas went through the same problems and came out with little to no atrocities. What I was saying is we should change criticisms from criticisms of Marxism-Leninism and how it inherently leads to authoritarianism with it's hierarchy, and instead change it to criticisms of how a decentrally planned system based on a lack f money would work in a nation and it's idealism. --Boredsocialist (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest separate sections of critique, both on this page. One takes down the eastern bloc, the other looks at "communism the idea."-Flandres (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Flandres Yeah, that's what I was proposing. One article to look at the horrors of Marxism-Leninism, and one to question the econmic validity of a marketless, moneyless society on a large scale without having economic downturn.--Boredsocialist (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Boredsocialistyou misunderstand my point. i do not say the brutality preceding the creation of any of these states justifies the horrors that follow. i am saying that the extreme brutality together with the realpolitik necessary to even get started explains the dehumanisation and paranoia that allows people to do horrific things better than broad ideological points. rojava, catalonia, zapatistas - did not remotely go through the same things, with no where near the scale of devastation, while still maintaining some continuity to what preceded them. compare to the old order being completely annihilated, with no organisation or structure surviving in to the new regimes of soviet russia or china. the extreme nature of the crisis at the birth of these communism nations must impact the course of regimes all the way down the line. we barely give them a nod.
there is no one size fits all. in practice success or failure depends on all manner of thing, from scale, to the manner in which power was gained, fundamentally altering the course a regime takes, altering perspectives of what we see communism to be. i see little value in looking at communism the 'idea' removed from practice when any implementation necessitates choices meaning the idea will always be a fantasy.
looking at what has been attempted, what the similarities are, the differences, what constitutes success or failure. you need a critique of russia and china. you need a critique for smaller scale efforts. see what factors must remain to be even called communism AMassiveGay (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

This is the level of deep intellectual analysis expected from an imbecilic shithub of centrists who ironically congregate under the banner of "rationality"[edit]

Marx's Determinism[edit]

From the article: "Marx was not deterministic, but he does occasionally seem as such; he believed that socialists would have to actively help educate the workers and fight for a revolution, rather than it just happening automatically. However, crises and such would aid it." I should note that I just changed some formatting here, so maybe I messed something up, but it seems to me that the claim that Marx occasionally seems deterministic is not supported by what follows it. I think it might be better to remove the statement that "he does occasionally seem as such," or to add a clearer example of where he seems to be deterministic. I also think "crises and such" needs more detail. It isn't clear what "and such" refers to, nor how it would help promote the revolution. Again, though, I feel I might just be missing something, so I thought I would mention it here. EyeSky (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)