Jump to content

Talk:Communism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Narssarssuaq (talk | contribs) at 19:06, 11 April 2020 (→‎Deaths). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Please edit "Marxist Communism" section

Under "Marxist Communism:" "These classes are directly antagonistic: the bourgeoisie has private ownership of the means of production and earns a profit off surplus value, which is generated by the proletariat, whom has no ownership of the means of production and therefore no option but to sell its labor to the bourgeoisie."

Both "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" are technically plural nouns. Singulars are "bourgeois" and "proletarian". So I think the final clause of the quoted sentence above should read " . . . WHO HAVE no ownership of the means . . ." "Whom" is not correct in any case. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semprestudioso (talk • contribs) 04:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't plural nouns. But I agree about "whom".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The inital description of the term at the top of the page needs an addition. It is not made clear where the ideology of communism exists on a political spectrum or quadrant. It should be described as far-left or radical leftism, just as fascism is described as far-right or reactionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordo60 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bias of the authors is readily apparent. Far-right ideologies are disparaged in every manner on WP while communism is referred to in a purely neutral tone. No mention of it being the antagonist of humanity and killing a hundred million people in the course of decades. The "criticism" section doesn't even include any criticisms, it's a joke and I'm sure the communist editors who are responsible will not show their faces. 108.46.59.94 (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"killing a hundred million people in the course of decades" Wrong article. See: mass killings under communist regimes. Dimadick (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the crimes against humanity perpetrated by fascists are mentioned on every single WP page dealing with fascism. It seems that none of these overt measures to avoid offending adherents to the ideology are taken into consideration for the far-right as they are for the far-left. And that article's title is written so evasively -- "mass killings under communist regimes", which insinuates that communism has NO causal relationship to the killings. By the way, that article is also not linked to ANYWHERE on this page. The bias is astounding. 108.46.59.94 (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering far-right ideologies tend to be explicitly based on favoring personal autocracy over democracy, threatening genocide, regarding war as a positive experience, etc., it isn't difficult to understand why there's a much easier time linking, say, Nazism with mass death. One can certainly make the argument that attempting to realize or lay the foundations for a communist society can only end in tyranny and misery, but the mere act of desiring a society where private property has been abolished and goods are distributed based on need is clearly not equivalent to desiring Lebensraum or the Holocaust. It's also important to differentiate criticisms of communism as such (e.g. whether it's feasible or desirable) from criticisms of Marxism. For example, Engels wrote that Robert Owen's Book of the New Moral World contained "the most clear-cut communism possible," yet critics of Owen don't claim he was responsible for the "death toll" of Communism, which is criticism almost invariably aimed at Marxism and/or states led by avowed Marxists. Such criticism evidently has a place in the article, but the focus should be criticism of the concept of communism. --Ismail (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Communism

The "Criticism of Communism" section is extremely pathetic. Not a single actual critique is even touched upon or enumerated. It seems this article was written on eggshells trying to appease communist sympathizers. Communism killed 100 million people in the 20th century and its historical failure in every state in which it has been applied is indisputable historical fact.

Much like the Holocaust, we need to make sure that these millions of deaths are remembered by future generations so they will not allow the same mistakes to repeat themselves. 108.46.59.94 (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC) Thank you!Wandavianempire (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wandavianempire: I agree completely. Like all the articles on far-left politics on Wikipedia, this article was clearly written by extreme leftists themselves, which is obviously far from ideal to say the very least. I'm new to Wikipedia and only edit incidentally, but if you have some good (sourced) criticisms to add, please do. St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the article states, we have two other articles Criticism of communist party rule and Criticisms of Marxism. We do not need to duplicate all that content here.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "criticism" section of Capitalism is about eight screens long on my screen. In short, WP:summary style isn't working on either of these pages. Here, criticism is essentially a stub and needs to outline main points. Conversely, it's too long on Capitalism, despite the available "child" articles. I think the OP has a point. It would do Wikipedia well to make each section of the main article comparable in length. I would try to cut down the paragraphs on Capitalism but imagine someone would yell at me. Outriggr (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case there is more (and more diverse) criticism of Capitalism than there is of Communism then the two sections must be different in size. It would just be a consequence of what reliable sources say. Wikipedia should not be WP:CENSORED, so I would not reduce the Capitalism section in size just for it to be comparable to the "opposite" Communism, in some sort of politically-correct equalization of the two ideologies. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously capitalism is the more accepted of the two ideologies in the world. To suggest otherwise is absurd. The inequality of these articles more likely stems from the fact that capitalists are busy producing capital, while communist are busy producing wikipedia activism. If only propaganda could sustain an economy...Awhodothey (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "inequality of these articles" is simply due to capitalism being a system which has actually existed for hundreds of years and has thus accumulated massive amounts of specific criticisms. Criticism of communism is either based on arguing why it can't exist due to "human nature" and the like, or arguing that communal settlements (such as those set up by the Icarians) and/or avowedly socialist countries like the USSR prove attempts to establish or otherwise transition to communism are illusory. It's naturally easier to find criticisms of social systems that actually exist. --Ismail (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In fact Communists did not kill 100 million people. That's a number thrown around in far right texts, including those that trivialize the holocaust, but has little or no mainstream support. Criticism in articles is usually taken from what appears in mainstream sources. Furthermore, it is supposed to be incorporated into the article not presented as a section of the article. There's no criticism sections for Adolph Hitler or Charles Manson for example. TFD (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

@Somedifferentstuff: According to Wiktionary, an analysis isa "detailed examination of the elements or structure of something." According to Merriam-Webster, an analysis is "a detailed examination of anything complex in order to understand its nature or to determine its essential features : a thorough study" That's obviously not what Communism is, it's an ideology. As it stands the article is presenting Communism/Marxism as an objective description of reality, when what this section is discussing is what Communists believe will/should happen. Therefore, 'theory' is the appropriate term to use here. This should not be controversial. Also, the sentences I modified were not sourced. --St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you're referring to the 2nd paragraph which is discussing schools of thought. Marxism, along with other schools of thought are based on analys(es) done by figures such as Marx and Engels. The current wording/terminology used there is appropriate. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just explained why it isn't. Please explain what you mean by "analyses". St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No you didn't, and I'm not going to explain to you what words mean. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DR Congo

In Current situation section, in the map, why Democratic Republic of Congo isn't colored? Aminabzz (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was never under a "nominally Marxist–Leninist communist government." Laurent-Désiré Kabila had identified as a Marxist for many years, but by the time he came to power, according to a 1997 NY Times article, "he says he has abandoned Marxism and now favors multiparty democracy." As for Lumumba, he stated in a July 22, 1960 interview: "I am not a Communist." --Ismail (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths

I tried to add this to the lede, but was reverted. Isn't this quite relevant information though?

Communist regimes have been accused of causing, directly or indirectly, more than 94 million deaths in the 20th century, from mass starvation, executions and deportations.[1]

Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Courtouis, S., Werth, N., Panné, J.-L., Paczkowski, A., Bartosek, K., Margolin, J.-L., 1997, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
It could maybe be rephrased into "The Communist movement" so that it corresponds with the opening sentence.Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's pretty bad when three of the contributors to the source you provided disassociated themselves from the very conclusion that you wish to include. O3000 (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Inaccurate one-line zingers are not helpful in achieving consensus. As The Black Book of Communism#Criticism explains, the book was criticized for both underestimating and overestimating deaths, and the criticism was of the editor's introduction to the book, not of the "meat" of the book. Even those criticizing the book for overestimating thought the accurate estimate was somewhere in the 60–90 million range rather than 94 million or 100 million+. That's really a distinction without a difference: it hardly matters whether "communism killed 60 million" or "communism killed 100 million"; the point is that communist regimes killed a whole lot of people. Even more than Nazis. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not the "movement" – movements don't kill people, people kill people. Regimes of people kill people, but not movements. Movements are ideas and ideas can't kill. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In a certain sense you are correct of course, but by analogy that would mean that the Nazism article should be stripped of all information on the Holocaust. I don't think that would be proper. Narssarssuaq (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the opposite: by my logic, the Holocaust should be mentioned in Nazism and Mass killings under communist regimes should be mentioned in Communism. But those two things really aren't the same and aren't analogous. Nazism is the ideology of the German Nazi party. It really doesn't extend further than that (facism, national socialism, and neo-nazism all being something different). Unlike communism, there weren't multiple Nazi regimes in multiple parts of the world, and nazism wasn't a political ideology written about by political scientists across multiple centuries. Nazism, the movement or the ideology, cannot really be separated from Hitler and the NSDAP. NSDAP "owns" nazism and is responsible for everything that happened in the name of "nazism". By contrast, the communist ideology spans two centuries and all corners of the globe. "Communism" is separate from "communists" in way that "nazism" is not separate from "nazis". Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this proposed sentence added to the lead was removed twice, once as being WP:UNDUE for the WP:LEAD, and the second time for being an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim (without the required extraordinary sourcing). My thoughts:
  1. I do not think this is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. In fact, I think it's extremely common knowledge that "communism killed 100 million". (The Black Book of Communism's 94 million figure is 23 years out-of-date.) There are a ton of sources supporting this "claim" (actually, it's an "estimate" more than a "claim"), and some of them are compiled at Mass killings under communist regimes#Estimates. Some of the estimates are higher, others are lower.
  2. However, the sentence as it was inserted was cited only to one source. If it's only one source, it should be attributed; to say it in wikivoice, it should be cited to multiple recent high-quality sources. I think the Black Book can count as one such source, but it can't carry the statement in wikivoice by itself.
  3. A separate question, as is always the question, is the framing of who, exactly did the killings. It certainly wasn't the "communist movement". "Communist regimes" is also a bit of a misnomer: the classic argument is that the regimes of Stalin and Mao were not actually communist, even if they called themselves communist. Those were totalitarian regimes using communist propaganda, but not actually implementing communist ideology (not really). Our article covers this already, but we should clarify this when talking about deaths caused by governments calling themselves communist.
  4. Then there's the WP:DUE question. Right now, the main topic article Communism doesn't mention, at all, Mass killings under communist regimes, except in "See also" and a template. The WP:LEAD should summarize the body. The body should be expanded on the point of impacts of communism, and "Mass killings under communist regimes" is part of that. The lead should also include mention of this, though carefully-worded.
  5. Bottom-line: I fundamentally support inclusion of this content in the body and the lead, but not necessarily the exact sentence proposed above. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something here? The regimes of Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung etc. were and are normally perceived as "communist", isn't that so? Dismissing any classification of these regimes may simply be perceived as a crafty way of avoiding scrutiny. At the very least this would require an alternative term (e.g. "quasi-communism" or something of the kind) which is in widespread use. Narssarssuaq (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for WP:DUE, the article Nazism does mention genocides in the lead, whereas this is not very developed in the rest of the article. I think this provides some reasonable context. Narssarssuaq (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree that it's odd that Nazism doesn't have a "Holocaust" section, it just mentions the Holocaust and links to it a few times, although it is in the lead. I would argue all that means is that the body of Nazism should be expanded.
W/r/t USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba being perceived as "communist", I would say the correct formulation is this: they called themselves "communist", they were commonly called "communist" or "socialist", but all academics recognized that none of those regimes were actual communist or socialist regimes. Rather, they were state capitalist regimes, which itself a euphemism for totalitarian. At no point in any of those countries did the people control the means of production.
Saying "communism killed millions of people", just like that, with no explanation, and pointing to the USSR or China, etc., as the basis for the statement, is kind of like saying "democracy killed millions of people" and pointing to, say, the USA bombing cities in World War II. It's not the ideology that caused the deaths, it's the people who cloak themselves in the ideology who are causing the deaths.
In the case of communism, what makes "deaths caused by communism" significant and worth mentioning is that governments calling themselves "communist" have killed more civilians than all other governments combined. It's also true to say this: dictatorships have killed more civilians than all other governments combined. So I think when saying that "communist regimes" are (basically) extraordinarily murderous, we also have to explain that this is because "communist regimes" were all totalitarian dictatorships, which can only stay in power through democide. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...all totalitarian dictatorships, which can only stay in power through democide. Exactly. Communism usually flourishes in a country in which the workers have had the short end of the stick, and were already under authoritarian rule. So is it communism or authoritarian government that killed these folk? There are certainly non-communist authoritarian governments that have killed large numbers of people. O3000 (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It can be spun as: authoritarian governments calling themselves communist have killed more innocent people than all other authoritarian governments in human history combined. Of course, the reason that's true is because authoritarian governments calling themselves communist arose in recent history, after the industrial revolution, when the Earth's population has exploded, in two of the most populous countries. Someday in the future, this statement will no longer be true, when some other authoritarian government arises, calling itself something else, and it has the honor of being the first to kill a billion people. But I think the answer to this, as with all things, is "follow the sources". We obviously shouldn't say it in the form of my OR spin statement; we should say what the most-reliable sources on the subject say. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the same argument is made for Nazism though. Deaths were obviously caused by ideological incitement of hatred towards certain groups, and by an ideologically based culture of violence. Mass starvation has been attributed to the ideological eradication of markets and a fundamental redesign of supply chains. These are not necessarily features of all totalitarian governments. Narssarssuaq (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gee, I thought my one-line zinger was pretty good.. I have two main problems with this. The first is the number/source combination given that half the contributors to the source don’t agree with the number. But, my main problem is attaching a number like this in reference to the quite broad concept of communism. Yes, one article covering all variations makes sense. But, assigning to the umbrella term such a number makes no sense to me considering all the characters and history involved. Do we include all of Hitler’s deaths under the umbrella label of capitalism? Stalin and Hitler were Christians. Do we also ascribe all their killings to Christianity? For that matter, if Stalin found it more convenient to operate as a capitalist, I would imagine that he would have and would have killed as many. Communism didn't kill these people; Stalin did. I don’t see this as useful in the lead. O3000 (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL, ok it was pretty good. The thing about "Stalin and Hitler were Christians", yes, I see that point, pretty much same as saying "Stalin and Hitler were dictators", and it's dictators, not communism or nazism, that kill people. But I think the fatal counterargument is sources. There are lots of sources talking about "how many people died under communism", it's definitely a 100% genuine area of academic study. We have to include this content because the sources include this content. Of course, there are all the caveats and explanations that go along with it. "94 million" (or 100 million) may not be the right number. This one source may not be the best source. And as I've said above, we have to explain that dictatorship is the common denominator to communist regimes. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    An additional level of complication is separating out the deaths. There's a distinction between deaths caused by policies instituted by communist regimes (like Stalin's 5-year plans), and deaths caused by communist regimes killing people to silence political dissent (like Stalin's purges), and deaths caused by wars or revolutions started by communist regimes, and so on. The "100 million" number is not wrong, but it's not helpful to give that number to the reader without a whole lot of explanation. I think our article Mass killings under communist regimes does a pretty good job of explaining all of this, and perhaps in this top-level article we can simply condense and summarize that article into like a paragraph for this article, and a subsequent sentence or two for the lead. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Communism&oldid=950373311"