Talk:Communism/Archive2

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 1 May 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)(back)

Metaphors for Communism[edit]

I've been doing some thinking, and I've realized that potlucks are basically communism in a nutshell. Hear me out: In both, people donate what they can(food/possessions) to a centralized authority(the host/the government), which then redistributes it equally among the donors. If anybody else has examples of metaphors for communism or examples of mini-communism, then share them here.

Pot-lucks are mutualist, actually; so, yes and also no. Rand0 (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Concerned Russian here[edit]

"Russia did go from laughable backwater to global superpower in one generation". Excuse me, but you can't call one of the Great Powers "laughable backwater". I should remind the author that Russian Empire was capable of developing such projects as Transsiberian railroad and the first ever multi-engine aircraft, which is kinda unexpected from 'backwater' countries, innit? Because it wasn't backwater. And if you mean Soviet Russia before Stalin, that doesn't make sense any way, because your point was communists being able to achive something sometimes, no matter the costs. But Russia became 'laughable' during the time of Lenin/Trotsky rule, and merely thanks to it. So even if communism was good with cleaning the mess, it was it's own mess. Deleted this horseshit. — Unsigned, by: 178.71.118.43 / talk / contribs

Ok, since nobody else cared for 3 days I deleted it for you. Nullahnung (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Nationalist nonsense has no place in this article. Russia was completely backwater, practically feudal, before the Bolsheviks took over. Under Lenin and Stalin, the USSR achieved unprecedented industrialization. Butthurt reactionary nationalist is butthurt. — Unsigned, by: 71.176.213.70 / talk / contribs

I'm not sure why not being industrialized and being a feudal society should automatically make a country "laughable backwater". If industrialized nations are automatically hugely powerful countries, we need to redo history because Belgium was clearly undeservedly left out in a lot of international power plays. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Laughable backwater? See also Winter War. WalkerWalkerWalker 21:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Being a laughable backwater doesn't mean it can't also be a great power, just that it's ability to throw its weight on the world stage as a GP is considered less than say, Germany or Britain who had World power status AND the means to actually prove it. Plus much of Russias status as a GP in the era of industrialization comes from being one -before- industrialization and thus being taken more seriously than a country as undeveloped as it should have been.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Russia was already undergoing rapid industrialization prior to WWI with French money but this process was disrupt by the war. So to say "Russia was a feudal backwater, then Lenin and Stalin came around and it was industrialized" is misleading to put it kindly. In fact, the reason WWI happened when it did was because Germany believed that a) war was inevitable and b) that if they waited any longer, the Russia army would be invincible. Or as Kaiser Wilhelm put it: "It's now or never". Clearly the Germans did not consider Russia a laughable backwater. They took the threat of Russia very, very seriously.— Unsigned, by: 24.199.117.147 / talk / contribs

Name Change[edit]

The Communism article is almost entirely about Marxism. While it mentions other forms of Communist thought, it portrays Marxism as essentially the same thing as communism, for example the materialist interpretation of history which not all communists embrace. The article should be renamed "Marxism" and edited to reflect that, while a new communism page should be started from the ground up.— Unsigned, by: Franko / talk / contribs

While there are other threads of communist thought, for our purposes the only relevant form of communism is Marxism and the bastard children that spawned when trying to put it into practice. Any others don't really deal with our mission enough to warrant making this another article. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I kinda see the point about renaming this article Marxism. But the real problem is all the unsourced assertions -- even the footnotes sometimes merely contain more assertions.---Mona- (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

S/he who sources wins[edit]

This article is grossly under-sourced. Currently, Gh1900 and Arisboch are doing some edit-warring. I'd side with the former if s/he can document the claims.

This entire article is mostly a pile of assertions. Bad wiki.---Mona- (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding more unsourced statements isn't a solution. If they have sources, they should add them now, not some time in the future, that isn't how sourcing works. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch's shit isn't sourced, either. 3/4 of the page is not. Arisboch doesn't merit his being there any more than this guy does. We aren't supposed to revert purely for lack of sourcing.---Mona- (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
You say we should give them a chance to put in sources, great, let them when they put the content back in, not days, weeks, months later.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Right. So I'm taking out all the other non-sourced stuff. You will of course support that. To be fair.---Mona- (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Stop it.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I will. When Gh1900 is allowed to stand. Well?---Mona- (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisbosch didn't make those edits, btw. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll be back tomorrow to either reinstate Gh1900 or revert the entire Castro stuff. Unless a reasonable explanation for disallowing one unsourced claim but not others is provided.---Mona- (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced claims should be fought, but not by either allowing them in anyways on the premise sources will be added by the editor later, or straight up removing -all- unsourced statements. Stop it. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
That's bullshit. I've previously put in a cn note and said I'll remove in X amount of time, and then it wasn't so I removed. Or it was, so I didn't. This is no different. YOU are applying a different standard to different editors. And no, I won't "stop it."---Mona- (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The difference is theyve made no promises of adding sources later. I'm not inclined to believe they will, as that's naive. And I'm not inclined to think they will when their reasoning for the change was "the old version was lying so here's truth!"--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
So what? I asked them to, which I've done before and it worked. 3/4 of the whole fucking article is unsourced, which I've noted on many, many articles here. My way was likely to get some sourcing, and if not, I'd have accepted the revert. It works, and I see no reason not to do it, especially when Arisboch's shit isn't sourced, either. I'll be doing this again re: other articles, because it is a good method.---Mona- (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
More than once you use this false claim that the current article is "Arisbochs" when no, it isn't. Stop that. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The Castro version ARISBOCH wants is unsourced. That's all I've said. The rest of the unsourced shit belongs to "others." The article is replete with unsourced shit, but the one guy I try to goad into sourcing, no, you can't have that. Fucking bullshit. And Watcher didn't even have the decency to enter the conversation to defend his disagreement. BULLSHIT.---Mona- (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Watcher never says much, just goes around standing things up that have fallen over, or been knocked down. SmartFeller (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, fine. But if he is involved in an edit war and others are thrashing it out on the talk page, he should either join or desist from the edits.---Mona- (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

And now Mona even wnat sto edit in favor of some Communist regime. Absolutely not surprising. What's next, Assad and Putin (his Holeyness Greenwald likes them).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 09:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, you are a wingnut. Being socially liberal does not preclude it, and that's what you are. It makes you post silly shit, as wingnuts are wont to do.---Mona- (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Moonbats saying I'm a wingnut (and/or a Zionist and/or a fascist and/or a Nazi), wingnut saying I'm a moonbat (and/or a kike and/or a Russky and/or a Zionist and/or a Nazi), I must be making something right on the net.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No. The "I'm in the middle so I'm right" thing is a fallacy. But then, you roll like that. ---Mona- (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding, if you wanted to be useful, and given that you appear to know something about the history of communism, you could add some desperately needed citations to the article. It's a pile of assertions.---Mona- (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Latin America[edit]

This article needs more about communism in Latin America. In Cuba it was popular for a while, and produced some achievements (healthcare, military actions against South Africa) and some bad things (poverty, denial of human rights). Allende's Chile showed promise but was overthrown quickly. Nicaragua actually had an elected communist government in the 1980s, though it lost power quite quickly. Annquin (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Twin Oaks[edit]

From TOW: "Though live television viewing is prohibited, Twin Oaks' members have access to the Internet as well as to public computers. Members can also watch movies and tapes of TV programs." I wonder what kind of place it is when being able to watch movies is touted as an advantage.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 12:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Why was the information about Cuba removed?[edit]

Down on the "The few examples when communism worked out relatively fine" bit, I had Cuba on it. Why, you may be asking? Because Cuba before Castro was a VERY corrupt place and the poor got jack shit. Cuba under communism had free healthcare, educated the poor and got them off the streets and, according to UNICEF, has 0% child malnutrition. (http://www.pravdareport.com/society/stories/08-07-2010/114174-unicef_confirms_child_malnut-0/) Who removed it, and why?--The Unwritten (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

That makes it a great example of social democracy, not communism. Withoutaname (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Not all communists are materialists[edit]

For a "rational" wiki, this site seems to really have a lot of bias and over generalizations — Unsigned, by: 184.58.100.105 / talk / contribs

What the hell kind of high school Communist doesn't understand the core concept of historical materialism? Also, "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
The article focuses almost entirely on mainstream Marxism (which depends on dialectical materialism) rather than other brands of communism, which include Christian communismWikipedia's W.svg and a bunch of fantasies about primitive hunter-gatherers living in perfect harmony with no personal possessions. There have certainly been Christian Marxists as well, but there's been a lot of soi-disant Marxists of numerous types who have precious little to do with Marx, so whatever. And if an article doesn't cover something, you can always expand it. Annquin (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I thought we already had pages on liberation theology and Jean-Jacques Rousseau? But you're not wrong, I suppose. One can always expand. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
A very simple counterexample: anarcho-communists (usually of the Kropotkin variety) have never read a page of Marx. Withoutaname (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Certainly; though you will agree it would be completely false to suggest that the two developed separately from eachother in some sort of vacuum. The fact is, of course, that their developments have always been intertwinedWikipedia's W.svg. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I have a BA-level degree in Christian Theology, and can confirm that Christian Communism is not the same as Liberation Theology. Liberation Theology is the South American Catholic ideal of increasing church funding to charities for those in poverty and calling for an end to the Eurocentric Christian model of the time to the church would better spot international problems (it's why Pope Francis was such a big deal). Christian Communism is about Christians abandoning personal ownership and living together in isolated self-supporting communes based on their interpretations of the New Testament Acts.-- Forerunner (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if you have ever heard of the "Diggers" or "true levelers" during the English Civil War? I recently heard the Revolutions Podcast on them and they seem to fit the bill of "religious communism" I am not the Ombud's man 18:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Attempt at "rational" critique of the "communism in practice" section[edit]

Since the ideological force of the cultural hegemon will in all likelihood prevent people from accepting communism anyway, and forgetting for the moment that communism is a movement rather than an ideology, I know it would be rather futile to critique this section but I will attempt it for the sake of https://xkcd.com/386/

  1. "highly illiberal and undemocratic manner" First off, there's nothing wrong with being "illiberal" and "undemocratic", which by this point in time have become meaningless buzzwords to cover up the sham of a democracy that "liberal democracy" represents today, and which anyone who pays attention to current politics will note exactly the oppressiveness of the dictatorship of capital.
  2. "characterized by one-party rule" Which would not be a problem either if the party was the institution of the sole rule of the working class over other classes, and which again would be a more transparent dictatorship than the choiceless two-party system we have today.
  3. "lack of civil rights" So-called "rights" are bourgeois constructions.
  4. "bureaucratic corruption" To this I concede the point.
  5. "The introduction of democratic government to totalitarian-backed communist countries has been inevitably followed by that country ceasing to be communist" By definition, "countries" cannot be "communist" because "communism" is a "worldwide" institution so they have never been "communist" in the first place.
  6. "The planned economies of communist countries have proven themselves unable to match the levels of growth and economic benefits found in less strictly controlled economic systems"
    • Revolutionary Catalonia
    • Notions of "economic growth" and "economic benefits" are metrics of capitalism rather than communism, which is why the USA and China (leaving out the EU) are #1 and #2 on the capitalist world system, respectively.
  7. "North Korea struggling to meet even the most basic needs of its citizens" There are always lots of problems with NK society but:
    • Most of this has been due to the US embargo.
    • Although NK is still struggling, it has gone a long way toward modernization and there's no reason to think it's still a purely agrarian country by this point.
  8. "In the Soviet Union during the premiership of Joseph Stalin, millions of Ukrainians starved to death" I'm leaning towards "general incompetence" on this one and the historical consensus seems to agree with me. Intentional or not though, the result (which really is the only thing that matters) is the same and the Soviet Union is at fault.
  9. "Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge":
  10. "The death toll from the Great Leap Forward in China under Mao Zedong has ranged from 18 million to (as previously mentioned) 45 million, as a consequence of economic upheavals caused by the government's attempts to "modernize" the country" Which doesn't seem much different from any other capitalist country's attempt at the Industrial Revolution.
  11. "The question then becomes what role was played by which ideologue." Ideologues, ideologies and the individuals tied up with them don't matter — only classes matter. The question then becomes which class is responsible for these atrocities, not which individuals.

Withoutaname (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me simply quote (or paraphrase, to be more exact) something that was attributed to Churchill, but was probably just quoted from a predecessor: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." No doubt, the currently existing democractic systems leave a lot to be desired. But, on the other hand, it's the best currently known system, since all the other sucked magnitudes more. Perhaps one day we'll find an even better system, but it will probably not be one that ignores the simple fact that humans are not ants. --Irian (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
"the best currently known system" This is just the "best of all possible worlds" nonsense perpetrated by Leibniz; when feudalism was the "best currently known system" for many centuries people did not just throw their hands in the air waiting for a better one. And whatever the new society to come, surely it won't also ignore the simple fact that humans are not isolated individuals to be filled with metaphysical "rights" and "freedoms". Withoutaname (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
No, but they also didn't work to bring anarchy back. Same today, if you believe the nothing changes, then you are caught in your own little bubble. But honestly, if you do not believe in basic rights and freedoms, I couldn't care less about your opinion. Some thing are non-negotiable, sorry. Being a decent human being, for example. --Irian (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Being a decent human being is only possible in the context of a community. The current system isolates individuals and abstracts the subject from the communal and social ties which they originate from, and imbue them with nonenforceable bourgeois constructions like "rights" and "freedoms", which don't actually mean anything outside of the community, and which reduce the individual to an abstraction to be worshipped and idolized. Withoutaname (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
First off, Churchill was a white supremacist and genocidal maniac who admired fascism so I wouldn't cite him to criticize democracy. Secondly, rights are negotiable: propertarians believe they have a "right to contract", many countries don't recognize a "right to bear arms", various countries see "free speech" differently than others. Rights are always withheld from a certain and precedent means nothing in these cases. Constitutions and laws aren't magic.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Withoutaname, On point 10, name one other capitalist country that had a death toll between 18-45 million in the process of industrialization? or in relative percentage tetms; China was about 800 million in the 1950s, so what other country killed 2-5% of its population in industrializing?nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 07:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure. Estimates of the death toll during the Soviet famine of 1932 range between 4 to 8 million.Wikipedia's W.svgWithoutaname (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Am I mistaken, or did you just give the Soviet famine as an example of, quote "...one other Capitalist country..."? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, I guess if you believe the USSR was a state capitalist country then... yes. On another note, weren't the Great Bengal Famine and Irish Famine caused by colonial industrializtion?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Depends on who you ask. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Really, I don't think you need to handwave Stalin's crimes to point out that both Ireland and India were heavily exploited in order to industrialize the UK and that such exploitation caused mass death and genocide.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I think there is a difference though. Looting other countries is not inheriently "capitalist", or Ancient Rome would be considered capitalist. Most of the looting was organized by the government towards a foreign population, which is obviously bad, but virtually any country, regardless of its domestic policy, can apply a different set of standards towards other countries it rules over. A totally egalitarian tribe that is internally peaceful can also support attacking other tribes and taking their resources, for instance. At most that really just proves that capitalism can coincide with, support, or benefit from pillaging, like virtually any economic philosophy can. However said looting was justified on racialist/imperialist grounds (hence why such thought is abhored now) and Mao's murders were justified as being based on communism (hence why such ideas are abhored now) so it's not actually inconsistant, both instances of mass deaths occuring debunked the actual guiding philosophies that led to them, I would just argue capitalism was not the actual guiding philosophy that led to those conquests even it it did profit from it. ClothCoat (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
That's why we use terms like "neo-imperialism" and "neocolonialism" in order to delineate more modern forms of imperialism which are intimately tied with capitalism versus older forms of imperialism. And capitalism is a system of a social system, whereby the ideologies derived from the ruling class that constitute it merely form the superstructure; it doesn't and cannot justify conquest so much as it is conquest. Similarly, communism is a movement, a negation of capitalism; it cannot justify murders so much as the ideologies which derive from it, like Marxism-Leninism etc.
Not sure where we're disagreeing. The pillaging can occur under any economic system but certain ideologies can guide it. Neoimperialism debunked imperialism/racialism which was the justification for it. Capitalism can coincide with it (even if mercantilism started it and remnants of it always remained) but it didn't really cause/justify it. Then it's only a question of what caused Mao's particularly gruesome mass murders (which managed to outperform even many of the "neoimperialists" in terms of deaths caused). At best this would debunk the entire brach of Marxist-Leninism/Stalinism/Maoist branch of communism, but Mao's justification for these deaths would be that they'd lead to a communist society so his justificaiton was based in communist thought. Even in this comments section you show a similar "The ends justify the means" and disregard for the lives of anyone who disagrees with you/gets in the way, which at its core gives your version of communism the same problems as Maoism and Racialism suffered from. ClothCoat (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
We're disagreeing because you appear to be downplaying the role of capitalism in causing imperialism, as the very system underpinning the "ideologies" you mention necessitates imperialism. Mao's attempt at "socialism" failed for many reasons, but here are a few: 1) it was based on a nationalist program rather than an internationalist one, and 2) the majority of the support for his political program came from the peasant class, which while poorer than the proletariat is nevertheless non-revolutionary, and in some cases even counter-revolutionary, under capitalism. The attempt at socialism from feudalism essentially fell back into state capitalism. Lastly, it is material conditions, not ideologies, which are responsible for these things; ideologies themselves are simply post-hoc justifications emanating from the ruling class of society. Withoutaname (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I said capitalism can coincide with it but most of said imperialism started with mercantilism and racialism. The rest of what you said is the more or less the usual unfalsafiable Marxist gobbledygook, of which saying that the peasants of China who joined MULTIPLE revolutions were non-revolutionary has to be my favorite claim though let me guess they don't count because they didn't lead to communism... Oh Christ this is like arguing with a fundie. ClothCoat (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
By non-revolutionary I meant that they are unable to reach socialism and the furthest they can reach is capitalism, but if you want to be pedantic then fine, they are revolutionary because they overturned the old feudal order. Withoutaname (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I like how being "pedantic" is just not using near-dead Orthodox Marxist terminology only used in fringe political circles/cults and instead using words as they are, you know, usually used. ClothCoat (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
"Libertarian" used to be a synonym for "non-Marxist socialism" before classical liberals in the United States appropriated it you know. The most widely understood meaning of a word is not necessarily the most correct one. Withoutaname (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Pretty sure words meanings can legitimitely change with time (there's no trademark on most of them afterall)... also pretty sure the word "revolutionary" existed before Marx anyways... ClothCoat (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Competition for resources doesn't have an ideology. Historically, some cultures and societies use trade to aquire resources, others use force. What goes around comes around. Those societies and cultures that use force to subjugate resources typically are not long for this world. Those that have used trade develope a system of law that other societies without law, or have a corrupt system of unjust laws, tend to gravitate toward, or appropriate for themselves. nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 02:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Withoutaname You're confusing Leibniz with Voltaire. But you're confusing a lot of things generally, so... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The phrase "the best of all possible worlds" (French: le meilleur des mondes possibles; German: Die beste aller möglichen Welten) was coined by the German polymath Gottfried Leibniz in his 1710 work Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal (Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil). The claim that the actual world is the best of all possible worlds is the central argument in Leibniz's theodicy, or his attempt to solve the problem of evil.Wikipedia's W.svg Withoutaname (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, I stand corrected (though, you do confuse a lot of things generally). Turns out Voltaire wrote his Poème sur le désastre de Lisbonne in criticism of the Liebnizian theodicyWikipedia's W.svg, not the other way around (as I misremembered). Man, and I thought I had read CandideWikipedia's W.svg recently! Turns out 2007 wasn't all that recent *gulp*... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

First off, there's nothing wrong with being "illiberal" and "undemocratic"- Withoutaname And that's the first reason out of many why you can fuck off.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC) 16:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Going straight to insults before being able to provide a decent rebuttal? It looks like you just took offense to my challenging your liberal morality. That's not very "rational" now, is it? The American Civil War was an illiberal and undemocratic attempt by the Union to prevent the Confederates from secession, the end result being the emancipation of the slaves. Yet no liberal ever questions the veneration of Lincoln's Reconstruction Era policies in the history textbooks. On the flipside it was precisely the liberal democratic values espoused by the Weimar Republic that was the precursor to modern fascism. Withoutaname (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
No, the Weimar Republic didn't became a dictatorship because it was such a democratic state, it became a dictatorship because it wasn't sufficiently democratic (without the President of the Reich having such insane privileges to e.g. override the diet, Hitler wouldn't have became the dictator). And you also use "not rational" as a euphemism for "not agreeing with me" (I'd use this template, if it wouldn't have been overused to death and undeath) and even use noe-confederationist talking points. Commies go to the right-wing to stick it to the "libruls". Horseshoe theory confirmed.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 18:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC) 18:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, is this a liberal using the "no true liberal democracy" argument against the Weimar Republic? You can deny all you want, but the end result of all liberal democratic states is fascism (c.f. Turkey). And I use "not rational" to mean falling into logical fallacies like you did above, not simple disagreement even though you might like to always assume otherwise.
"Neo-confederationist talking points"? Who said I was pro-Confederate? You're projecting hard there buddy. I said I approve of the Union's illiberal and undemocratic means to end slavery since the end result is a more egalitarian society. Are you going to stick by your liberal and democratic principles and defend the Confederate? Perhaps you're projecting because you're afraid of realizing that some problems like slavery can't simply be "reformed" away through liberal democracy? It could be the cognitive dissonance of a liberal realizing how close they are to being a conservative.
If you use horseshoe theory you've displayed an astounding ignorance of the histories between the socialist and conservative movements and of the history behind the use of the left-right spectrum, as well as falling into the balance fallacy which all liberals do. Withoutaname (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
"the end result of all liberal democratic states is fascism" Ok then, if you say so. I'm just glad that states run by your communist parties have never fallen to the authoritarian, nationalistic right-wing.ClothCoat (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Parties which have failed to abolish money, classes, and the state have failed to represent the interests of the working class. Most of those revolutions occurred in feudal countries and thus sided with the peasant class, which although poorer than the proletariat had no revolutionary potential under capitalism. Socialist revolutions are more likely to be successful in the advanced countries like the US, UK and Germany than they are in the underdeveloped ones. (Although to their credit those revolutions did manage to reach capitalism, which is but a stepping stone to socialism.) Withoutaname (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
So why are you defening the "illiberal and undemocratic" manner those parties governed in? Why are you defensive of them? And socialist revolutions don't even really happen in advanced countries because people don't want to die for abstract, vague ideologies that may or may not work unless they have almost nothing to lose. ClothCoat (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not defending those parties, I'm defending the dictatorship of the proletariat. Like how capitalist dictatorship transcended the feudalist monarchies that came before it, the "illiberal and undemocratic" class rule of the proletariat will eventually transcend the "liberal democracies" that exist today. Also socialism "is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, [a mere ideology] to which reality [will] have to adjust itself", but an active movement that continues every day.
Besides, the difference between this liberal criticism of "communism in practice" and a leftist criticism of communism in practice is like the difference between a conservative criticizing Obama for implementing "socialist" universal healthcare and a liberal criticizing Obama because he deported more people than Bush did (i.e. it's a very bad critique of what actually went wrong). Withoutaname (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
In the West, fascism is dead, buried and people are pissing on it's grave.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 01:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC) 01:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
If that's the case then why is the alt-right gaining in popularity? Withoutaname (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The alt-right is just the far-right for young people. It's always existed sort-of but it just had a chance to grab a nominee because the GOP collapsed on itself. Any functioning party would be able to ignore them and they will likely lose in a blowout this November because they're so unpopular, and they might drag down the Republican Party with it. Not really much of a success. ClothCoat (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
lack of civil rights" So-called "rights" are bourgeois constructions. Anyone else think this quote would be perfect for the next Bioshock game if they base the dytopian cities ideology on some authoritarian far-left ideology? ClothCoat (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I know I would play it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that would work. We've only seen glimpses of how the authoritarian dictatorship of the proletariat would look like in the Paris Commune and Revolutionary Catalonia, but there's no telling what the future society would look like on a larger scale. The capitalists which abolished feudalism under the French Revolution never imagined this is how liberal democracy would look like either.
And yes, "rights" don't have any inherent meaning outside of the society which grants them. It's a pure abstraction of the individual which ignores completely the societal context from which the individual originates, and by making absolute opens up the possibility of abuse. We see routinely the espousal of "human rights" from above as justification for invading other lands and the very hypocritical neglect of them through police violence. The simple fact is they're nonenforceable and their interpretation is completely at the whim of the ruling class. If liberal democracy determined I had a "right" to all your possessions, is that just or fair? Withoutaname (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
"Rights are abstract and tough to work out so don't bother cause it's all a farce". Liberal Democracy determines rights based at least somewhat in individually, not just for no reason, so no I don't think you would ever get ALL my stuff anyways, though if I was rich and you were poor you might get some of it since some wealth redistribution can enhance individual rights without really infringing on others people's "rights". ClothCoat (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I like how you argue above that "people don't want to die for abstract, vague ideologies that may or may not work unless they have almost nothing to lose" and yet your very concept of "rights" is an "abstract, vague ideology" that has never worked in principle that many people seemed to have died for. Withoutaname (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
In the West it works... More or less. If you want perfection, you won't get it. An utopia doesn't exist and all the attempts to build it failed.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 02:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC) 02:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not asking for a utopia of complete and total equality, I'm just asking for abolition of money, classes and the state. Surely those goals are not too difficult? Of course rather than simply asking weI could just use more authoritarian ways to accomplish them. Withoutaname (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean "we"? Why do you, the internet philosopher, get to be in charge of purges? LOL you'd probably be on the chopping block as soon as you slip up in some arbitrary way. You remind me of a certain other group that just masturbates to murdering their opponents and staying in power over all the normies who laughed at them. ClothCoat (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
My mistake, I corrected my use of pronouns. And anyway that's probably fine, as long as the goals are accomplished. It might be just as violent a struggle as between the Dantonists and the Hebertists during the French Revolution. Who knows? Withoutaname (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh I see you're playing a character. Carry on then. ClothCoat (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
How do you think feudalism lasted so long without the use of rights? Withoutaname (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Poorly. Though it did believe in rights... for some. ClothCoat (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
And the rights you speak of today best applies only to those who own property. Withoutaname (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I was unaware we live in anarcho-capitalist fairly land. Are you saying that if somebody owns a building and rents it out to somebody they can legally kill them and/or legally rape their wife or daughters on a whim? ClothCoat (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Of course not. There are always consequences, and even in feudalism there were checks on the king's power through the many factions of the upper-class nobles. Still the more power you accumulate (which is expressed by the amount of capital you have) the more likely you are to get away with misdeeds (like the child labor that occurred in the 19th century). Withoutaname (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
That is why most liberal countries do not allow for laissez-faires capitalism. ClothCoat (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Mao Zedong a philosopher?[edit]

This discussion was imported from here.

Shouldn't he be considered a political philosopher? I mean, he did develop a communistic philosophy, called Maoism. Whether or not it works in practice is another story, but still, he should at least be considered a philosopher.--75.118.113.248 (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

He brought zero knowledge to Marxism and even less to philosophy. Maoism is more about "tactics" and "strategies" in fighting the bourgeoisie but it leads to shitty conclusions like Maoism Third-Worldism. Withoutaname (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I actually agree somewhat. While Mao read philosophy in his youth, that's about it. He was no philosopher. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
And yet the little red book was one of the all time bestsellers in the shitty fiction department. But so are the bible and the Q'uran even though even in the "holy book" shelf there are ones that offer more information and insight. I am not the Ombud's man 17:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
By developing the concept of a Marxist revolution based on the peasants,Wikipedia's W.svg in contrast to the Soviets who specifically rejected this notion, Mao did indeed add a new twist to Marxism and it was his ideas and not those of the Soviets which were influential on the liberation movement of many colonies as the Soviet emphasis on the industrial workers was simply irrelevant to their circumstances. Thus, I'd consider him a political philosopher, if not a particularly great one. You may as well argue that Lenin was not a political philosopher because he based his ideas off Marx and "only" added twists such as the "telescoped revolutions" (or, "two revolutions for the price of one", meaning you could "skip ahead" in the Marxist historical ladder of societal development). ScepticWombat (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Your supposed Wikipedia Link goes nowhere, sadly. I am not the Ombud's man 18:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to agree with ScepticWombat (and disagree with the tankie). Even if Mao's contributions aren't much beyond thisWikipedia's W.svg (loosely speaking), they still obviously count. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
My own, homemade, completely unscholarly view of the Marx/Lenin/Mao triumvirate goes something like this: Marx created a millenarian political ideology which gained more credence by its self-understanding and presentation of itself as being (natural) SCIENCE. Lenin added the further notion that you weren't bound to a Marxist determinism but could influence and accelerate the course of events. Mao supplemented these ideas with the concept that you didn't even need an industrial proletariat to have a Marxist revolution. The irony is, of course, that Marx's ideas and their dogmatic followers resemble "secular religious fanatics" more than anything else (especially by refusing to accept that many Marxist concepts have been subject to falsification as in not holding up to real world developments); that Lenin's ideas of forcing the "logic of history" was profoundly at odds with the whole idea that Marxism had uncovered a series of iron laws; and that Mao's "non-proletarian" revolution was even more ill suited to rest within Marx's original framework. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think to a certain extent Marxism (in its original form as envisioned by Marx) is a rather good analysis of capitalism and a self defeating prophecy as to its future. Leninism and Maoism in turn are both useless in theory and practice. I am not the Ombud's man 19:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I was once taught by an economist who was a specialist in Marx (though I don't think he was a Marxist). His characterisation of Marxist thought has always stuck with me. He summed up the relevance of Marx something like this: As an economist, Marx's ideas were outdated within a decade or two, at most, after he published them. However, Marx was a perhaps unparalleled chronicler of capitalism with a keen eye for its character (I think he specifically cited Marx's notions of commodification and fetishism) and it is in this regard that Marx remains relevant.
(EC) I heard someone else, I forget who, suggest provocatively but only slightly tongue in cheek that all the old Western Maoists and other Marxists had transferred and transformed the concept of the permanent revolution into the current management culture. While it was meant ironically, I've wondered ever since whether there was something to it. Perhaps not literally, but "permanent revolution" seems a pretty accurate description of how management actually functions these days when everything is always "in transition" (which is a wonderful excuse for anything that doesn't work, kind of like the deflection of criticism of soviet or any other style of actual communism by the claim that it was only "a stage" in the transformative process that would result in "real" communism, eventually) ScepticWombat (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Laurogeita Hamabost @ScepticWombat Very true. Marx was a terrible historian and a puddle-deep inventor of a replacement system. However, his analysis of contemporary industrial Capitalism was unparalleled. In fact, it was so good that the effects of his writing trickled down powerfully into both liberalism and leftism, and helped steer society away from the heartless Capitalism of the 1800's. The irony, of course, is that this establishment of wellfare capitalism (where it took root, like in Sweden) completely pulled out the rug from under Marx's other predictions about capitalist collapse. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@ScepticWombat's homebrew rundown: I'd like to just add the following minor elaborations to the above, not in criticism of it, but in expansion upon the above, which is — with a well-willing and sympathetic interpretation — an admittedly non-scholarly summary that is not at all wrong (in any non-toxic, minimally anal-retentive interpretation of it, that is. Read: expect a butthurt tankie to disagree with you.). The following points are given in the order that the things commented on appear in your above text.
  • I'd say that it was Marx and Engels who created the "millenialist political ideology" in question.
  • Extremely worthwhile to mention here is the philosophical heritage of Hegel (e.g. the utopian/eschatological outlook Hegel had on the necessary direction of history) and of Rosseau (especially his concept of the General Will; the diplomatic passport given to all modern totalitarian ideologies, in both extreme ends of the horseshoe, though to Communism especially).
  • You write that Marxism "gained more credence by its self-understanding", but actually, the main portion of its credence came from its understanding of contemporary Capitalism. It didn't understand itself well at all, as everything about it has always been thought as an analysis of an existing system, not a tangible vision of a system to be (notably, the concept of the "dicatorship of the proletariat", an expression Marx only actually used twice in all his writings, never expanding upon it meaningfully when he did).
  • Marxism did indeed present itself as a science of necessary consequence of the materialist reality in which it claims that we live. See Hegel on the march of history, again.
  • Being a historicist framework (aspiring to be a sort of grand unified theory of sociology, no less), Marxism did not only insist that it could scientifically predict the future, but that it could also perfectly encapsulate the past. The opening of the Communist manifesto reads, (quote): "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.". Now-nonsensical concepts such as that of "primitive communism" also encapsulates this paper-thin understanding of the past which Marxism centers on.
  • Worth noting also is that Marx was not a national leader himself; he was above all an abstract theorist and a polemicist, which partially why his writings are notoriously thin on practical details. This is where Lenin and Mao (among others — I skip Stalin here) enter the picture — the warlords who actually had to invent all the practicalities necessary to bring about the Marxist abstractions in the real world.
  • Three final points on Marx that need to be understood here:
    • Marx was perfectly clear that only advanced industrialized and urban societies could have socialist revolutions. Predominantly rural, agrarian societies (read: all countries that have adopted Communism) were not ready for such changes, and history had to follow its own logic. Again, Marxism is to be understood in the light of its main prediction — the utter, global victory of Capitalism, which will lead the Capitalist system to destroy itself, not collapse from without.
    • Marx was consistently an internationalist. Communism in one country could not work (which was a major theoretical contribution of Stalin — the idea of Communist self-reliance). Again, the global victory of industrial capitalism was a key factor that had to come about on its own, leaving nothing but industrially advanced societies on Earth, and then a global revolution could take place. This process could not be sped up by some assholes with guns taking over some rural country and declaring Communism.
    • Finally, it's important to note that Marx meant Communism to be the movement towards the victory of the proletariat, and not just a term for the end goal.
  • Moving on to Lenin — his main theoretical contributions were on the role of the revolutionary party (and the vanguard), his theories on imperialism (read: his lobotomy of the original Marxist precepts), and his drawing up of aggressive distinctions between Socialism and Communism (unlike Marx, who used the terms interchangeably).
  • Lenin also had a very elitist conception of Communism, notoriously mirroring the philosopher-kings of Plato's Republic in his theory on the vanguard.
  • Aside from his legacy of elitism, Lenin also developed the idea of the intense secrecy surrounding the Communist party. In 1921, long after monarchy had been overthrown, he notoriously tightened the bolts to fullblown Orwellianism even more. His elitist and secretive conception of the Communist party is perhaps his most enduring legacy.
  • Regarding Mao, his main contribution was developing a theoretical justification for rule by a Communist party in a, (quote): "semi-colonial, semi-feudal society comprising mainly peasants and petty bourgeoisie." Even Stalin accepted that Communism had to be based on an urban industrial proletariat, and indeed, Marx and Engels wrote in the Communist manifesto about "the idiocy of rural life". But since Mao took power in an overwhelmingly agricultural country, he needed Stalin's concept of "Marxism-Leninism" to justify his Communism in one country.
  • You mention falsification and Marxism, yet, Popper used Marxism as one of the classical examples of theories which cannot be falsified (alongside Psychoanalysis, among others). They are unfalsifiable, and as such, they do not actually have any quality of science whatsoever. See The Dragon in My Garage for a great summary on the issues of unfalsifiable theories.
  • As a final note, you mention the "speeding up of history" — known as the fight between volentarists and determinists. Marx himself was a staunch determinist, moreso towards the end of his life. Lenin and Mao were on the other hand zealots of volentarism, which is a direct consequence of their need to hammer Marxism into something they themselves could use to motivate taking the power with arms in the here-and-now. Never mind the fact that both Mao and Lenin wrote and said one thing, yet did contradictory things all the time after actually gaining power. And remember — I'm skipping Stalin here.
Something like that, baked into the above, and now the soup's gone from having one homebrew chef, to having two. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Complaints[edit]

Dunning-Kruger effect states that the average RationalWikian values their own unscholarly political arguments above and beyond those accepted by actual academic experts in political science. The zeal with which they ironically label as "dogmatic unscientific tankie crank zealots" any Marxist/leftist supporter of revolutionary violence is akin to the creationists railing against the "Darwinian dogma" of "liberal elitist ivory tower academics". Withoutaname (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Suddenly, Withoutaname began writing like this. His eyes glistening; he knew this to be the way actual academics write. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
What's an "actual" academic? I am not the Ombud's man 23:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I think you're barking up the wrong tree, Withoutaname.
First off, this is about ideology, not (natural) science and not even within the more quantitative territory of the social sciences which is why your creationism/evolution analogy fails, hard.
Secondly, this is a discussion of intellectual history and considerations about what degree of contributions to Marxist thought would merit giving Mao the label "political philosopher".
Thirdly, the last bit was clearly a detour of me and the Rev. exchanging our personal views on the history and merits of Marxist ideas. Hell, the Rev.'s final line as well as my first one in our exchange pretty obviously underscore that we were not claiming that these were any more than our personal takes, hence your Dunning-Kruger allegation also fails, hard.
Fourthly, if you have some of those useful citations from the "actual academic experts in political science" you alluded to, feel free to contribute. It's a lot more useful than vague snideful comments bordering on trolling. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Here are some sources:
Maoism's focus on the peasantry rather than the proletariat as the revolutionary force that would bring about socialism is anti-Marxist, wishful idealism. Also, if anyone's trolling here it's been RBP. He's been doing nothing but randomly posting {{dftt}} in response to me ever since I made this thread. Withoutaname (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Marx created a millenarian political ideology" RealityWikipedia's W.svg disagreesWikipedia's W.svg.
  • "The irony is, of course, that Marx's ideas and their dogmatic followers resemble "secular religious fanatics" more than anything else" Not any more dogmatic than followers of Darwinian evolution (see the eugenics movement).
  • "...profoundly at odds with the whole idea that Marxism had uncovered a series of iron laws" The laws are not "iron", they are ever-changing in their representation within capitalism, that's why it's called the "dialectic".
  • "I was once taught by an economist" Most likely a liberal economist who would once again prove why economics is not a science.
  • If Marx were a bad economist then that would contradict your characterizing him as an "unparalleled chronicler of capitalism with a keen eye for its character".
  • "this establishment of wellfare capitalism completely pulled out the rug from under Marx's other predictions about capitalist collapse" Uh no, it simply prolonged the development of capitalism; "welfare capitalism" hasn't falsified any of Marx's ideas except maybe regarding fiat vs commodity-backed currencies.
  • "an admittedly non-scholarly summary that is not at all wrong" What was that about "we were not claiming that these were any more than our personal takes"?
  • Rousseau and Hegel? Really?
  • Horseshit theory is horseshit.
  • "Marxism did not only insist that it could scientifically predict the future, but that it could also perfectly encapsulate the past" See Darwinism and any scientific theory which relies on the hard problem of induction.
  • RBP somehow got Marx right on his three final points.
  • What exactly is wrong with Lenin's theories on imperialism? In fact neo-imperialismWikipedia's W.svg and neocolonialismWikipedia's W.svg perfectly encapsulate how imperialism's character has fundamentally changed in the transition from feudalism to capitalism.
  • FalsificationismWikipedia's W.svg again, really? Even Karl Popper did not think falsificationism was the epistemological dead-end of science, see his support for psychology. Do you even think psychology is a proper science?
  • Which of Marx's theories were falsified? The law of value? Surplus value? Exploitation? Commodification? The tendency of the rate of profit to fall?

Withoutaname (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh look the Stalin fanboys are mad[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitLiberalsSay/comments/59liec/rationalwikis_pages_on_communism_aka_a_hive_of/ FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 13:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone might be interested in checking out my views on the historical function of Communism[edit]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Who_were_the_communists%3F Gewgtweg (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Some points missing about Communism.[edit]

Libertarian Socialist here. Addressing some points to Communism that are missing.

- The entry point to whole Communism is this - You are employed only because you produce more worth than you are paid. For instance the median productivity of American workers is worth 60k$ while wages are 30k$. This exploitation is what is to be hidden from the workers all around the globe. And this exploitation is where the profits come from. The article does not mention exploitation at all. [In essence - one works half of his entire work life for free]

- This system was first established under the Napolean wars by the Bourgouise class. Which was the middle class - working under feudal lords and kings - and supervising the working class. Once the Bourgouise became rich enough it terminated the rules of the fuedal monarchs. While "Privatizing" the means of living - the resourceful land - in the process. Massacarring rebelling peasants in the process. Introducing these new land enclosure and vagabond laws (to localize the peasant revolution). That was the birth of Capitalism. I think the article leaves out the bloody start of this system.

- Now here are the problems with this "system" - beyond that exploitation mechanism. Given that the workers - 95% - produce more value (in commodity form) than they are paid in wages - they can not buy those commodities back. The businesses run in loss. Lay off workers who can not buy other goods. And those businesses go in loss. And the entire economy tanks. With huge sum of Capital laying with the Capitalists in bank while mass misery having been created.

- During a "Bust", small Capitalists are all eliminated. Bigger Capitalists buy off their assets for as cheap as possible. And the unemployed workforce agrees to work for as less as possible. Hence the system builds into higher extremes - for a bigger bust next time around.

"The rise in the number of businesses in recent years shows that a recession can be an excellent time to start a business," he wrote. "Competitors who fall by the wayside enable well-run firms to expand and increase market share. Factors of production such as premises and labor can be cheaper and higher quality, meaning that return on investment can be greater." - The Guardian.

This results to emerging of Monopoly Capitalists. When Capitalists fuse with the state and control the state [What generally people call "Corporatism" is a natural result of Capitalism - until you put a lid on the wealth limit]. Hence the entire society is almost run as a "planned economy". With, again, the emerging capitalists getting all the investments only by the earlier capitalists - thus a strong consolidation of power.

- Another problem with this system is this - once your nation's economy becomes "mature" - that is all possible corners have been exploited for resources, everyone is a wage worker, and new enterprises are not emerging - the Capitalists can do only two things - sell the products outside - or employ other poorer nations worker's to manufacture those products for cheaper and cheaper for the workers at home. This employing other nation's worker is the beginning of Imperialism. [This has been a historical extension of all "mature" capitalist systems - without any exception. Thus responsible for Imperialist wars as well as misery of those who were re colonized]

"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused." -- Wilson Woodrow.

"The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere." - Karl Marx.

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

― Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated Soldier

Post world war - Britain, France, Germany, Austria Hungary, were your great imperialist powers. Who started the war over division of African colonies.

"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose — especially their lives." Eugene Debs. He was later sent to prison for spreading this activism about the Bourgeoisie war.

"The [First World] war is being waged for the division of colonies and the robbery of foreign territory; thieves have fallen out–and to refer to the defeats at a given moment of one of the thieves in order to identify the interests of all thieves with the interests of the nation or the fatherland is an unconscionable bourgeois lie." - Lenin on his interpretation of the First World War.

- The invasion of other nations is done at gun point. For instance, post world war 2, under Marshal Plan, devised by American business community leader - William Clayton and historian George Kennan - to "maintain wealth disparity that America has" [you can look this up] - America and CIA terminated democracy in these nations which resisted American investment - Iran, Guatemala, Congo, Brazil, Chile. While often getting their presidents killed in the process.

- Coming to Mao and Stalin, the class wars were quite real. The horrors they committed "to their own people" [Bourgeoisie?] was as bad as what the Bourgeoisie was doing to the entire globe and had done to "their own people" [sending them for Imperialist wars to die - plunging entire planet into a world war]. The class wars was quite open in those days. Look up Lodlow Massacre, Homestead Massacre, Haymarket Massacre, Vera Cruz,Battle of Blair Mountain, Vena Massacre, Bloody Sunday. Highlighting them as a "special case" as something "out of the usual", is held as an attempt by communists as a propaganda technique than any sincere effort towards anything. Moreover, Mao's death toll of 40 million is not really verifiable. The revisionist / capitalists from Hong Kong or Den Xiapoing without actually citing any source. Den Xiapoing's count was 16.5 million.

Nonetheless, the "planning" was not entirely black and white. China saw a massive rise in a population that was poverty stricken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Birth_rate_in_China.svg

China would have been recolonized under Imperialism pretty much how U.S recolonized Africa, Latin America, and parts of South East Asia.

Coming to democracy, post emergence of monopoly capitalism, democracy works only as a facade in Capitalist regimes.

"Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich – that is the democracy of capitalist society. If we look more closely into the machinery of capitalist democracy, we see everywhere, in the "petty" – supposedly petty – details of the suffrage (residential qualifications, exclusion of women, etc.), in the technique of the representative institutions, in the actual obstacles to the right of assembly (public buildings are not for "paupers"!), in the purely capitalist organization of the daily press, etc., etc., – we see restriction after restriction upon democracy. These restrictions, exceptions, exclusions, obstacles for the poor seem slight, especially in the eyes of one who has never known want himself and has never been in close contact with the oppressed classes in their mass life (and nine out of 10, if not 99 out of 100, bourgeois publicists and politicians come under this category); but in their sum total these restrictions exclude and squeeze out the poor from politics, from active participation in democracy." — Lenin

I am not sure if things have changed today. Likewise, the Imperialist regimes terminate democracy in the re colonized nations [characterized by Capital flowing to those nations - while those nations being poorer].

- With the current world completely " capitalized ", it is not the conditions of workers in the imperial nations that will suffer, but that in the colonized nations. While moving jobs to those nations will hurt jobs at home and create at home misery. Hence, as per Lenin, Imperialism will cause "Revolution". But where the revolution occurs - at home or in the colonized nations - can not be predicted. [The shifting of misery from the Imperialist citadels to the Colonized nations should be mentioned]

- As per Marxists, the systems death is guaranteed. Reasons being the tendency of falling rates of profits -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MEoC.png

The system will save itself as long as it can "Expand" it's "Markets". It is thus clearly responsible for the Climate Change we are all in the midst of.

- By "Liberalism", which communists are against, communists understand these things - 1 ] Private ownership of work place, instead of worker ownership 2 ] Assault on public welfare. Classical liberals, starting from John Locke, under the Lockeo proviso, held this true that property [resourceful land that time] can be appropriated " "...at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others". Generally, Socialists like Noam Chomsky, hold the modern Classical Liberalism as a Orwellian distortion of actual classical liberalism. While communists do not care if it is distortion or not - as they consider such mechanism the source of exploitation. Communists are also against Social Democrats because 1 ] Social Democracy can not resolve the problem of Capitalism 2 ] The concessions gained by SOc Dems are silently taken back and Soc Dems conspire in this, hence do not represent the interest of the labor class.— Unsigned, by: HoboSapien / talk / contribs

It's clear that you come at this article from a point of anti-capitalist and pro-communist bias. That's fine, even if I and RW think you're wrong. You are free to add whatever can be reliably sourced, as are all contributors. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 03:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

What a good debunk Fuzzy! Just say something about "bias" and tell the user that he is wrong, then walk away. Well done, you amazingly bourgeois-minded person.The Unwritten (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

First, I wouldn't think every communists would be for welfare, for example Lenin said that those who do not work do not eat. Secondly, you be anticapitalist without being for worker ownership of means of productions (and you can be anti-capitalist without being opposed to private property), there can be welfare and workplace democracy while means of productions stays in the hands of the boss of the corporation. Also, the Soviet Union and China seemed far from Marx's definition of communism. Marx wanted means of productions to be owned by workers, he was also for democracy, which Mao and Stalin surely weren't. Diacelium (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Omissions[edit]

The Mongolian communist state and Tannu Tuva (centre of Asia and best known for its stamps [1]). 86.191.127.63 (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

/r/FullCommunism is 100% on board with the Reagan quote[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/FULLCOMMUNISM/comments/60o9l1/ronnie_raygun_on_communism/ Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, stop making fun of Trump's favorite president. Very sad! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Should communism be listed as "Crimes against humanity?"[edit]

Here's some stuff for reference. AIDS Skrillex--White male 01:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely you white male! --101.181.57.232 (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

This page could use a quote at the beginning of it, something along the lines for example of "What are you, two years old? Hasn't history proven that Marx's vision of an egalitarian utopia is unattainable, inevitably creating an oligarchy more oppressive than the bourgeoisie it vilifies?"[edit]

From a great episode of the high-quality animated series. --101.181.57.232 (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Any objections to this? --101.181.57.232 (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
No objections? Then I will restore the edit. --101.181.57.232 (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely laughable article[edit]

The lead of the article equates Communism with dialectical materialism ffs. This site is a joke.

Lol "there are only a few remaining nation-states which proclaim themselves Communist"? Those states claim to be socialist not communist. No evidence can be provided to back up that statement.

Those are just a few examples of wild in inaccuracies. — Unsigned, by: 89.100.39.82 / talk / contribs

Some states are still governed by communist parties, e.g. China and Vietnam. That seems a fairly clear case of self-defined communism. --Gospatric (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
They dub themselves Communist, as that is their goal, not their current status. Almost all of these states will freely admit to being Socialist, not Communist, as they haven't realized that goal yet. Just because they have "Communist" in the name doesn't imply that they are Commmunist states. Otherwise "Free Market" would actually be a thing, and North Korea would be democratic.
Communism and Dialectical Materialism are two different things, however. One doesn't give way to the other, so that's a valid complaint to have. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Domenico Losurdo[edit]

This man should be mentioned here? He has made a career in defending genocide and totalitarianism as the moment when social objectivity is achieved (or something like that, it's basically a red Carl Schmitt). He also wrote an adorable book called "Liberalism: A Counter-History", where he basically accuses liberalism of everything done by Stalin and Mao, whom he defends ...

I've read his book. It's actually really good, considering he sources nearly every statement he makes, plus his objections to Liberalism as a ideology are absolutely valid. Pretty sure him showing how most American Liberals assisted with and advocated slavery isn't something that Stalin or Mao did at all, lol. I'd suggest reading it first before jumping to such conclusions.

He can get a page for himself if you REALLY want him to be mentioned, but putting him in here would be out of place and off topic. Click Link Or Gulag (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Does the soviet premier(particularly lenin) count as a "dictator"?[edit]

Esepcially by today's de-jure definitions that are used for people like Al Asad? An anon user changed it from "dictator" to "Bolshevik leader" and I don't want to be too quick changing it back. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

My definition of "dictator" is anyone who has autocratic or near-autocratic power, so by that standard definition, Lenin qualifies. Of course, there are matters of political sensitivities, but when has RW not been one to bluntly state the truth, no matter how harsh it is?--Don Juan (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)